Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because it's a profound question.

It's not a profound question. It's a matter of math. To suggest we are the only life form in the universe is ridiculous. There are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet. Lord knows how many planets there would be around those stars. To suggest that we are the most advanced life form in the universe is equally as ridiculous. As a species we have only really begin to spread our technological wings in the last 100 years. Imagine civilizations tens of thousands of years more advanced on a similar scale.

I don't 100% doubt alien lifeforms exist of some sort. I just have trouble believing they've been visiting for decades, buzzing military planes, and just generally being evasive but obvious at the same time. There is no logic to it. I think if aliens(or their drones) are actually going to come here, we'd know, because they would make it known. And if they didn't want us to know? Well, we wouldn't be seeing evidence like this for decades. They'd be a lot more stealthy.

You're projecting our understanding of the universe and the behaviors of humans onto others. Alien civilizations would look at us no more than we look at ants on the pavement. We're just another life form worthy of study. And who knows how they chose to study other creates or civilizations. Science doesn't always study things the same way. Sociologists will study cultures from afar, or fully engage them. Biologists will do the same, observing animals in their natural habitat or taking specimens for lab study. Maybe they do the same? Maybe they don't give a #### and do what they want as they observe us?

[Fuzz]

That's your opinion. 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.


As to the second part, sure, it's possible. But it doesn't feel very scientific. If life is plentiful, why bother spending 100 years here? If they are looking for intelligent life, as we do with our planet's species, why wouldn't they attempt communication? There is no evidence we are being "studied" and the logic for it doesn't work, which is why I tend to dismiss that theory.

[Ozy_Flame]

My guess is they've been here for a long time. That seems to be a prevailing feeling from some of the Disclosure folks like Elizondo, Mellon, and even OG's like Jacques Vallee. There are fairly wide-ranging but similar interpretations of the "Star People" from American and Australian indigenous populations as well.

And I agree with Lanny - we can't apply human logic to anything that might be intelligently non-human.

In fact, I think we should anticipate that whatever research finds out about the phenomena may reveal even more weird behavior/existence than we thought. I think we have to consider the possibility that non-human intelligence may be quite difficult to grasp.

There was a movie called Annihilation not too long ago (based off a book) that expresses alien life as something that we just can't perceive in conventional terms.

I think we might also find this isn't strictly a three-dimensional construct or phenomena. Carl Sagan had a great description of how a 2D world might interpret a 3D world. I think humans in a 3D world would have a difficult time interpreting beings or objects that exist in 4D as well.

[Cowboy89]

It's kinda funny how posters who routinely crap on the religious every chance they get are in here in the UFO thread believing in aliens using the same logic theologians use to describe their faith.

[Ozy_Flame]

Who is crapping on the religious?

God and non-human intelligence can co-exist.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's your opinion.

Yes and no. You can say its an "opinion", but so is the theory of gravity. I tend to actually rely on science and believe what science has to say on the matter, and contrary to your you position there is pretty good support for the belief in intelligent life beyond our planet. Simple Bayesian inference drives that belief. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson all believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, they just question/questioned the potential for other civilizations to travel here based on OUR current understanding of physics. Again, this is because of a projection of OUR understanding of physics and what WE believe we know about the universe around us, not considering the advanced understanding much older civilizations may have. I tend to look past what our current context is, understanding how far we have come in just the past century, then consider there are star systems out there that are billions of years older than our own (the known universe is estimated to be just under 14 billion years old, while our galaxy is was born just over 4.5 billion years ago). To suggest we are on par with possible intelligences that may be millions of years more advanced than us is quite arrogant, and to you use your own terms, quite illogical.

I think most scientists think we are the only planet with life, or the universe is teaming with it.

Well, you've pretty much covered both ends of that dichotomy. Really hedged your bets there. I think you'd be surprised how many scientists ascribe to the concept of there being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The number is a majority, much greater than the majority of average citizens who believe in extraterrestrial life. Where there is argument is exactly as deGrasse Tyson frames the issue, the capacity to travel the distances to visit our planet. I've had similar discussions with a compatriot of mine, a famous theoretical physicist (who I won't name drop), who is in the same camp as NdGT. He holds firm on the limitations of what we understand about physics preventing visitation, but he does not discount life itself. Interestingly, when we put the card on the table that our understanding may be limited, or just flat out wrong, he admits that the possibility increases dramatically. I always reminded him of the various changes in thinking we have had in the past 100 years, which always got a smile and a nod of acknowledgment that sometimes our hubris of what we think we know may make us develop tunnel vision and not be open to the revolutionary ideas that ultimately make us rethink the old and establish new understanding.

Since we have no evidence of the later, we can't discount the former.

Since I have no evidence that you're not a pickle I can't discount that I may indeed be discussing this topic with a pickle.

As to the second part, sure, it's possible. But it doesn't feel very scientific. If life is plentiful, why bother spending 100 years here?

Why do humans continue to study known species? Why waste our time? Because that actually is science in action. Science is actually all about continual observation and learning what we can from those observations. It is never a waste of time as longitudinal study is how we learn about things.

If they are looking for intelligent life, as we do with our planet's species, why wouldn't they attempt communication?

Maybe they view us as too immature for such communication? Maybe they view us as nothing more than a life form or animal worthy of study? How many biologists attempt to "communicate" with the subject of study? Again, you're projecting YOUR understanding of things on something that may have an intelligence that is well beyond our understanding. If you were studying paramecium, would you bother to try and communicate with it?

There is no evidence we are being "studied" and the logic for it doesn't work, which is why I tend to dismiss that theory.

There actually is. There is quite the body of evidence, although you'll quickly dismiss it because you have already made up your mind on the subject. There is physical evidence of visitations. There is physical evidence of abduction. There is physical evidence of examination and tagging (scarring and implants). There is plenty of witness testimony of abduction. There is plenty of psychological evidence of these experiences. Again, you'll dismiss it, but the evidence is there.

[Muta]

If benevolent aliens are out there and we’re just a giant Petri dish for them, now would be a really good time to come down and put an end to Covid, and also do something about climate change while they’re at it. Or at least bring back the McRib somehow.

[Fuzz]

There's no shortage of scientists who believe in the Rare Earth Hypotheses either, so it's not like I'm clinging to an unsupported theory. It's a possibility to consider.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_E...esis#Advocates


Also, your arrogance in the discussion is irritating. Maybe tone it down a notch.

[GGG]

I find it difficult to satisfy the Drake equation such that there is intelligent life in the Galaxy but also that their isn’t abundant intelligent life in the Galaxy. Essentially if one race achieved FLT then their should be a universe teaming with races that have FLT.

Or life is truly rare. There is a very limited range of variables which would satisfy a universe in which we haven’t detected other life and that life is close enough to visit us. The range of variables in which there isn’t intelligent life visiting us is far larger.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's kinda funny how posters who routinely crap on the religious every chance they get are in here in the UFO thread believing in aliens using the same logic theologians use to describe their faith.

What would religious leaders do if aliens showed up?

When I raised the possibility of extraterrestrial life to Reggie Blount, a pastor in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, he shared a verse from the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians: “We look through a mirror dimly.” For Blount and many Christians, the full reality of God’s creation will be forever obscure to human beings, like opaque glass. As Blount sees it, in a universe containing a potentially infinite number of galaxies, aliens may very well exist. “But,” he emphasizes, “I don’t think other intelligent beings would change our relationship to God.”

In his book Religions and Extraterrestrial Life, astronomer David Weintraub describes this capacity of modern religions to evolve and adapt: “Historically, some religions have shown that they have enough theological dexterity to survive the regular challenges to doctrine and belief that emerge from humankind’s increasingly sophisticated knowledge about the natural world (e.g., despite its very public spat with Galileo, the Roman Catholic Church has adapted to the scientific knowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun).” According to Weintraub, with the exception of a few fundamentalist sects, the Big Three religions “are robust enough to accommodate the paradigm-busting news that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would present.” Beyond those, a number of Eastern religions, including Buddhism and Hinduism, already explicitly posit other worlds and sentient beings.

When I asked Adam Frank (who, I should emphasize, is skeptical about UFOs) how he’d explain Buddhism to an alien, he offered a succinct response: “I would say that Buddhism is just this. It’s a religion that focuses on exactly what’s happening: nothing more.” I suspect believers and nonbelievers alike would do well to go with the Buddhists on this one and regularly take measure of a universe that’s at once perplexing and comprehensible. Something’s happening—in the skies, in our souls, or both, or neither, depending on whom you ask—and everyone’s this deserves a fair hearing

https://slate.com/technology/2021/10...on-clergy.html

[djsFlames]

I just want.... aliens.

Is that so hard?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Dion

What would religious leaders do if aliens showed up?

Well, if one believes "God created man in his image", then the idea of an ancient hybridization program between humans and and advanced race (which resulted in us shooting up the food chain) about 70-100k years ago isn't so unrealistic!

[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.

[Ozy_Flame]

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.

That's exactly what Ronald Reagan said to the U.N. in the 80's.

[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.

[Dion]

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.

Why do you think they are monitoring our missle sites and bases. Make sure we don't start a nuclear war.

[Fuzz]

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.

Aren't you optimistic about human behaviour... I suspect there'd be all sorts of petty squabbling and attempting to monopolize contact. We'd look like fools to any advanced species watching it unfold. Then they'd probably nope outa our solar system, and we'd be left blaming everyone else.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There's no shortage of scientists who believe in the Rare Earth Hypotheses either, so it's not like I'm clinging to an unsupported theory. It's a possibility to consider.

Sure, and COVID is just like the flu. It's a possibility to consider. The data doesn't support the claim. The Rare Earth Hypothesis has minority support because of data we have available, and continues to be expanded upon every month. The constraints of the Rare Earth Hypothesis are such that an identical condition as ours must exist for the conditions of life to evolve. The specificity and absoluteness of that premise is what brings the theory down in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_E...esis#Advocates

At least present an argument that doesn't defeat itself. I don't even have to trot out all the failures of the Rare Earth Hypothesis as the wikipedia article you present does just that. The Rare Earth Hypothesis doesn't pass rigor as many of the limiters of the theory have been disproven on our own planet or on other celestial bodies in our own solar system.

Also, your arrogance in the discussion is irritating. Maybe tone it down a notch.

Arrogance? I'm just picking your arguments to pieces and letting the results speak for themselves. It's rhetoric in action. If you don't like it, improve your arguments. TBQH, your ignorance in this discussion is mildly irritating. If you're going to counter a concept, don't do it in self-defeating fashion. We haven't even discussed anything "controversial" to this point. I don't know what you're going to do if someone should drop the concepts of multiple dimensions, and these objects being able to transition between those dimensions, or the multiverse, and these objects being able to phase between universes, or the possibility that these are evidence of a yet undiscovered terrestrial intelligence vastly superior to our own. Some real science fiction in some of those theories and really conflict with what we think we know about our planet and universe. We're just talking about the basics of the subject at this point.

[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.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's kinda funny how posters who routinely crap on the religious every chance they get are in here in the UFO thread believing in aliens using the same logic theologians use to describe their faith.

That's a real interesting comment Cowboy. Not a religious guy anymore, nor bother to engage religious types for the most part, as I believe faith is personal and unique to the individual. So that comment is really interesting. Here is where I think the comment is off base and not reflective of the discussion or issue.

1) There are many theories behind what these phenomena are. There is no one theory that people ascribe to, nor is there any dogma associated with it.

2) The structural foundations of "religion" is missing. There is no central authority, no leader in the crusade to defeat evil, no consistent morals, beliefs, or worldviews. There is no sacred text, no place of worship, no rituals associated with any of the beliefs.

3) This is belief more than it is faith. There is evidence to support the claims, and scientific inquiry into the provide substance to the belief in the phenomena. If you were looking for something that does pull these various theories together it would be they are datacentric. The focus on the physicality of these phenomena is what drives the interest in the subject all together. If anything, when spirituality is mentioned in circles pertaining to this subject, most will roll their eyes. The new age theories, which speak to spirituality, have fringe support.

Speaking personally, I tend to look at these things as needing physical explanation, because they are physical devices. They are observed no only in the visible spectrum, but also through the infrared spectrum. They are picked up on radar and tracked as solid physical devices. They also do things beyond our understanding and capabilities. That means they are very unlikely to be from our understandable context. We must look beyond what we think we know and consider the thigs we don't know, and be willing to consider the fallibility of the things we think we know.

This is another issue where the connection to religion breaks down. Religion is usually based on the infallibility of the creator, while this subject matter is based largely on the fallibility of the owners/operators of these objects.

I think your comment is interesting, so I would like more of your thoughts here.