Where are the UFOs?

[Pelagic]

I am surprised that the encounter(s) have been made public AND that it is not a bigger story than what it is AND FINALLY that the military does not seem to be more interested in them than they are.

 

 

This is evidence in favor of rb's theory.  But much of what you said I have no answer for.  If they actually saw what they describe, it sounds like tech that is far beyond what is available to humans currently (never mind a decade ago).

 

Yes, I forgot to mention that ALL of this is predicated on these reports being reported TRUTHFULLY.  In this day & age, there is a lot of false information out there...and this certainly could be the case here.

 

It isn't necessarily false information or pilots lying.  There is always the possibility that they didn't see what they thought they saw.  Light and reflections can play tricks on you and your brain can fill in details in your visual field that aren't really there.  Google optical illusions and you can spend hours looking at weird visual mind tricks.  That combined with unknown/undiscovered/rare natural phenomena can trick even honest people into thinking they saw something that they didn't actually see. Ball lightning used to be mistaken for UFOs.

 

Fair enough, and IMO this probably explains the vast majority of UFO "sightings". However, this specific incident was captured on IR camera as well as being witnessed by 4 separate individuals (a pilot and RIO in each F-18). It's also worth pointing out that the individuals who witnessed it were all naval officers with extensive pilot training and a degree of familiarity with most existing forms of aircraft developed by humans. I think most would give their claims more weight than the average individual who claims to have seen a UFO. Not that they couldn't have been tricked but the fact there were multiple observers, it was captured on IR, and there was some evidence of disruption on the surface of the water, certainly raises questions in this specific instance.

 

[rkbabang]

I am surprised that the encounter(s) have been made public AND that it is not a bigger story than what it is AND FINALLY that the military does not seem to be more interested in them than they are.

 

 

This is evidence in favor of rb's theory.  But much of what you said I have no answer for.  If they actually saw what they describe, it sounds like tech that is far beyond what is available to humans currently (never mind a decade ago).

 

Yes, I forgot to mention that ALL of this is predicated on these reports being reported TRUTHFULLY.  In this day & age, there is a lot of false information out there...and this certainly could be the case here.

 

It isn't necessarily false information or pilots lying.  There is always the possibility that they didn't see what they thought they saw.  Light and reflections can play tricks on you and your brain can fill in details in your visual field that aren't really there.  Google optical illusions and you can spend hours looking at weird visual mind tricks.  That combined with unknown/undiscovered/rare natural phenomena can trick even honest people into thinking they saw something that they didn't actually see. Ball lightning used to be mistaken for UFOs.

 

Fair enough, and IMO this probably explains the vast majority of UFO "sightings". However, this specific incident was captured on IR camera as well as being witnessed by 4 separate individuals (a pilot and RIO in each F-18). It's also worth pointing out that the individuals who witnessed it were all naval officers with extensive pilot training and a degree of familiarity with most existing forms of aircraft developed by humans. I think most would give their claims more weight than the average individual who claims to have seen a UFO. Not that they couldn't have been tricked but the fact there were multiple observers, it was captured on IR, and there was some evidence of disruption on the surface of the water, certainly raises questions in this specific instance.

 

 

It certainly does.  I don't know what to think.  It was a UFO for sure, but remember what the "U" stands for.  There is a wide spectrum of possibilities. "It's aliens," is just one possibility out of many and probably not the most likely.  I doubt that it is aliens or humans, both of those seem far fetched.  I don't have a theory of what it could be though.

 

 

[rkbabang]

In the Washington Post a few days ago:

 

Harvard’s top astronomer says an alien ship may be among us — and he doesn’t care what his colleagues think

 

[DTEJD1997]

In the Washington Post a few days ago:

 

Harvard’s top astronomer says an alien ship may be among us — and he doesn’t care what his colleagues think

 

There are many interviews with Avi Loeb...some of the best ones are to be found here:

 

 

I think that "asteroid" may indeed be alien technology...but that is a VERY speculative conclusion.  I think we would need to get a MUCH better picture/image of it OR that it is sending off radio waves, OR that it suddenly changes course/acceleration. 

 

It apparently has accelerated already...but that may simply be ice or vapor "gassing off" like in a comet.

 

Very unusual object indeed and worthy of further investigation!

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

Has anyone else noticed that talk of UFO's are slowly percolating through the mainstream media?

 

For example, even the NYT has now picked up on what was discussed earlier in this thread.  Please see:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wow-what-is-that-navy-pilots-report-unexplained-flying-objects/ar-AABXltD

 

One new nugget of information that has been disclosed is that these sightings have started once new, advanced RADAR systems were brought online.  These UFO's would show up for hours at a time on RADAR.  At first, they were ignored and thought to be a flaw in the system.  Then they actually went out to see with their eyes/cameras what was going on, and sure enough, there were UFO's.

 

There is another part of the article that makes me scratch my head. Leon Golub is quoted as saying that the chance it is extraterrastials is exceedingly low and is probably swamp gas, reflected lights, or a glitch in the recording system, or neurological overload.  I wonder if that is a generic quote OR if that is his quote in reaction to this story.  If that is NOT a generic quote, I've got to question Mr. Golub's experience/intelligence.  It is most clearly NOT neurological overload, the UFO's were first picked up on the new advanced RADAR.  Then it was SIGHTED by the pilots eyes.  Then it was recorded on video tape.  How could that be reflected lights?  To suggest otherwise is simply moronic.

 

This is also NOT a 1 time event.  While not happening frequently, it has been observed MULTIPLE times.

 

What is VERY CLEAR, is that there is something out there.  99.99% chance.  The one chance that there is NOT something out there is that this might be an elaborate government hoax? 

 

Assuming it is not a hoax, What is not clear is who made it, who is piloting/controlling it, what exactly it is (drone, fighter, experiment, amusement park ride?), what the technology is OR what it's intentions are.

 

This should be getting more press and attention than what it is.

 

 

 

 

[Fat Pitch]

Has anyone here read up on the Roswell crash? There's a book you can download for free that talks about it by an alleged whistle-blower: The Day After Roswell

Book by Philip J. Corso

 

You literally have all the high ranking officials who were present at the site all confirming it was a space craft that crashed. The evidence is too overwhelming at this point. Even the declassified Project Blue Book docs has a sketching of the wing craft that crashed in Roswell.

[doughishere]

Hey all:

 

Has anyone else noticed that talk of UFO's are slowly percolating through the mainstream media?

 

For example, even the NYT has now picked up on what was discussed earlier in this thread.  Please see:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wow-what-is-that-navy-pilots-report-unexplained-flying-objects/ar-AABXltD

 

One new nugget of information that has been disclosed is that these sightings have started once new, advanced RADAR systems were brought online.  These UFO's would show up for hours at a time on RADAR.  At first, they were ignored and thought to be a flaw in the system.  Then they actually went out to see with their eyes/cameras what was going on, and sure enough, there were UFO's.

 

There is another part of the article that makes me scratch my head. Leon Golub is quoted as saying that the chance it is extraterrastials is exceedingly low and is probably swamp gas, reflected lights, or a glitch in the recording system, or neurological overload.  I wonder if that is a generic quote OR if that is his quote in reaction to this story.  If that is NOT a generic quote, I've got to question Mr. Golub's experience/intelligence.  It is most clearly NOT neurological overload, the UFO's were first picked up on the new advanced RADAR.  Then it was SIGHTED by the pilots eyes.  Then it was recorded on video tape.  How could that be reflected lights?  To suggest otherwise is simply moronic.

 

This is also NOT a 1 time event.  While not happening frequently, it has been observed MULTIPLE times.

 

What is VERY CLEAR, is that there is something out there.  99.99% chance.  The one chance that there is NOT something out there is that this might be an elaborate government hoax? 

 

Assuming it is not a hoax, What is not clear is who made it, who is piloting/controlling it, what exactly it is (drone, fighter, experiment, amusement park ride?), what the technology is OR what it's intentions are.

 

This should be getting more press and attention than what it is.

 

 

Why dont we see more of this on like reddit or something given that at any moment theres 15k+ aircraft in the air at a given time? Most Im willing to venture have cell phone cameras in them. Cloaking Devices?

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

Has anyone else noticed that talk of UFO's are slowly percolating through the mainstream media?

 

For example, even the NYT has now picked up on what was discussed earlier in this thread.  Please see:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wow-what-is-that-navy-pilots-report-unexplained-flying-objects/ar-AABXltD

 

One new nugget of information that has been disclosed is that these sightings have started once new, advanced RADAR systems were brought online.  These UFO's would show up for hours at a time on RADAR.  At first, they were ignored and thought to be a flaw in the system.  Then they actually went out to see with their eyes/cameras what was going on, and sure enough, there were UFO's.

 

There is another part of the article that makes me scratch my head. Leon Golub is quoted as saying that the chance it is extraterrastials is exceedingly low and is probably swamp gas, reflected lights, or a glitch in the recording system, or neurological overload.  I wonder if that is a generic quote OR if that is his quote in reaction to this story.  If that is NOT a generic quote, I've got to question Mr. Golub's experience/intelligence.  It is most clearly NOT neurological overload, the UFO's were first picked up on the new advanced RADAR.  Then it was SIGHTED by the pilots eyes.  Then it was recorded on video tape.  How could that be reflected lights?  To suggest otherwise is simply moronic.

 

This is also NOT a 1 time event.  While not happening frequently, it has been observed MULTIPLE times.

 

What is VERY CLEAR, is that there is something out there.  99.99% chance.  The one chance that there is NOT something out there is that this might be an elaborate government hoax? 

 

Assuming it is not a hoax, What is not clear is who made it, who is piloting/controlling it, what exactly it is (drone, fighter, experiment, amusement park ride?), what the technology is OR what it's intentions are.

 

This should be getting more press and attention than what it is.

 

 

Why dont we see more of this on like reddit or something given that at any moment theres 15k+ aircraft in the air at a given time? Most Im willing to venture have cell phone cameras in them. Cloaking Devices?

 

If I recall correctly, the Navy was encountering these UFO's a few hundred miles off the coast.  I presume those are not in heavily trafficked air corridors?  If I also recall correctly, the UFO's that were encountered were staying/hovering usually in one area...they weren't traveling hither and yon.  Finally, MOST (not all) of the UFO's were relatively small, the size of a small plane.

 

So unless you were looking for them, OR had the upgraded radar, (or both), you probably would not see or notice them.

 

There have been NUMEROUS reports of people spotting UFO's as passengers in airplanes, but I would discount those reports MUCH more than the Navy's reports.

 

The thing about the Navy reports is that:

 

A). UFO's were initially spotted by RADAR

B). The were spotted by RADAR multiple times/days

C). Trained/experienced pilots saw them and could not discern what they were

D). Most importantly of all, a lot of the encounters had some video recording

E). Navy admits something was there, but no idea what it was

 

So in my opinion, these Navy encounters are vastly different and more credible than anything that has previously reported.

[Castanza]

Has anyone here read up on the Roswell crash? There's a book you can download for free that talks about it by an alleged whistle-blower: The Day After Roswell

Book by Philip J. Corso

 

You literally have all the high ranking officials who were present at the site all confirming it was a space craft that crashed. The evidence is too overwhelming at this point. Even the declassified Project Blue Book docs has a sketching of the wing craft that crashed in Roswell.

 

You lost me at "alleged whistle-blower" and then again at "all high ranking officials confirm space craft crash."

 

Not to mention you forgot to name the book  :P

 

_________________________________________________________

 

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

Just because mathematical odds can be applied to something, doesn't mean that it will or has happened. Especially once you remove all pre-suppositions and go based on empirical data only. 

 

Even if you believe that life came about because some magic mud got struck by lightening creating a single celled organism (1 in a gazillion chance) and then on top of that, the single celled organism, somehow "learned" to function, replicate, evolve, etc. So if you take the odds of life beginning and then the odds of that life surviving and then the odds of life evolving I just don't buy the alien argument. Because it's all based on something we have ZERO knowledge of. Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

If I had to pick some Sci-fi "hypothesis", I think it's much more likely that we are just some simulation being run by some neck-bearded nerd. And all we are is sentient AI which is operating within a set of parameters (Laws of Physics, etc) of a program. I once heard someone say: "Mathematics is the language of God." perhaps it is.

[rkbabang]

Although I personally like the simulation hypothesis, it may be just glitches in the matrix that we are seeing.  Maybe very little processing power is spent rendering those areas normally not observed by humans and we just never noticed before.  If this is the case, wait until we start expanding into space.  Maybe the whole system will be in need of some serious upgrades, or maybe they will just decide to turn it off or let it crash.    The other possibility is that it is intentional, the creators of the sim are just messing with us to see how we react.

 

Of course there is the possibility that there is some other explanation, extra-terrestrial explanations shouldn't be ruled out entirely until they can be ruled out.

 

It is interesting that the state (all existing governments) are not more interested in this.  There is a possible explanation in this Washington Post piece:

 

"Wendt and Duvall argued that state sovereignty as we understand it is anthropocentric, or “constituted and organized by reference to human beings alone.” They argued that the real reason UFOs have been dismissed is because of the existential challenge that they pose for a worldview in which human beings are the most technologically advanced life-forms:

 

UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility.... The puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the ability to make such a decision. The UFO can be “known” only by not asking what it is."

 

UFOs exist and everyone needs to adjust to that fact

UFOs are not the same thing as extraterrestrial life. But we should start thinking about that possibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/ufos-exist-everyone-needs-adjust-that-fact/

 

 

[Fat Pitch]

I did name the book if you read more slowly next time... Below is the link to Amazon but you can find a PDF copy or HTML for free. Seriously everyone needs to read this book before even forming an opinion on UFOs/extraterrestrial life.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Day-After-Roswell-Philip-Corso/dp/067101756X

 

Has anyone here read up on the Roswell crash? There's a book you can download for free that talks about it by an alleged whistle-blower: The Day After Roswell

Book by Philip J. Corso

 

You literally have all the high ranking officials who were present at the site all confirming it was a space craft that crashed. The evidence is too overwhelming at this point. Even the declassified Project Blue Book docs has a sketching of the wing craft that crashed in Roswell.

 

You lost me at "alleged whistle-blower" and then again at "all high ranking officials confirm space craft crash."

 

Not to mention you forgot to name the book  :P

 

_________________________________________________________

 

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

Just because mathematical odds can be applied to something, doesn't mean that it will or has happened. Especially once you remove all pre-suppositions and go based on empirical data only. 

 

Even if you believe that life came about because some magic mud got struck by lightening creating a single celled organism (1 in a gazillion chance) and then on top of that, the single celled organism, somehow "learned" to function, replicate, evolve, etc. So if you take the odds of life beginning and then the odds of that life surviving and then the odds of life evolving I just don't buy the alien argument. Because it's all based on something we have ZERO knowledge of. Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

If I had to pick some Sci-fi "hypothesis", I think it's much more likely that we are just some simulation being run by some neck-bearded nerd. And all we are is sentient AI which is operating within a set of parameters (Laws of Physics, etc) of a program. I once heard someone say: "Mathematics is the language of God." perhaps it is.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

We know how life got started. At some point our planet had an atmosphere with plenty of organic and fairly little free Oxygen and plenty of lightning storms. It has been shown in lab experiments  that this leads to the formation of fairly complex organic molecules which started to a accumulate. At some point, a molecule was created that could replicate itself (the Ur DNS) and things got started from there. Surely, the creating of a molecule (or several different molecules) that could replicate was a huge milestone they took many many rolls of a dice so to speak.  It also recall, that we had a laboratory the size of planet earth and hundred of millions of years to the disposal. It is likely that something  eventually will evolve. Once something works, evolution goes to work.

 

We don’t know why the big bank happened, but it is sort of an irrelevant question. Before the Big Bang happened, there was no space/ matter or even time. Even the laws of physics as we currently know them didn’t exist. Since time didn’t exist, there is no beginning or end either.

 

We do not know how likely other life is, but we do know that planets like our own seem to be plenty full in the universe, as are the elements they our life is build upon. It is also possible that life may develop based on other chemistries (Silicon can create macromolecules, but the bonds are not as stable than carbo, so this would likely develop at lower temperature and probably not water based.

 

I am not an expert on this but the driving force of evolution  (whatever works survives and multiplies, whatever doesn’t, ceases to exist) can lead to the evolution of complex, self organizing structures that are able to duplicate. That’s what life is.

[Jurgis]

We don’t know why the big bank happened

 

Many small banks merged into bigger banks and then into even bigger banks. Anti trust authorities were asleep at the wheel and so Big Bank happened.

[Castanza]

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

We know how life got started. At some point our planet had an atmosphere with plenty of organic and fairly little free Oxygen and plenty of lightning storms. It has been shown in lab experiments  that this leads to the formation of fairly complex organic molecules which started to a accumulate. At some point, a molecule was created that could replicate itself (the Ur DNS) and things got started from there. Surely, the creating of a molecule (or several different molecules) that could replicate was a huge milestone they took many many rolls of a dice so to speak.  It also recall, that we had a laboratory the size of planet earth and hundred of millions of years to the disposal. It is likely that something  eventually will evolve. Once something works, evolution goes to work.

 

We don’t know why the big bank happened, but it is sort of an irrelevant question. Before the Big Bang happened, there was no space/ matter or even time. Even the laws of physics as we currently know them didn’t exist. Since time didn’t exist, there is no beginning or end either.

 

We do not know how likely other life is, but we do know that planets like our own seem to be plenty full in the universe, as are the elements they our life is build upon. It is also possible that life may develop based on other chemistries (Silicon can create macromolecules, but the bonds are not as stable than carbo, so this would likely develop at lower temperature and probably not water based.

 

I am not an expert on this but the driving force of evolution  (whatever works survives and multiplies, whatever doesn’t, ceases to exist) can lead to the evolution of complex, self organizing structures that are able to duplicate. That’s what life is.

 

No we don't. That is scientists best guess, but if you go read any of the Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Berkeley, Chicago, journals they say they don't know for sure. There is a big difference between having chemicals and compounds suitable for life and those chemicals becoming a living being. Science has not explained this and it's not even an educated guess as none of it has been testable etc.

 

The closest we've come is in computer simulations but even the creators said that the parameters were based on DNA and RNA as we know it. In other words, they are giving it the answer. I believe off hand scientists have also been able to create synthetic DNA and RNA and possible replicate it. BUT they have only been able to do so with it being derived from actually DNA and RNA. Again, this is a HUGE and key difference from random compounds forming molecules then somehow forming proteins, enzymes, and ribozymes  then RNA and replicating until they form a single celled organism.

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html

 

Here is a recent article highlighting the "breaking news"

 

However, once you get past the click bait title you can see how ridiculous it is.

 

"If a ribozyme could replicate folded RNA, it might be able to copy itself and support a simple living system."

 

"but if the RNA was folded it blocked the ribozyme from copying it. Since ribozymes themselves are folded RNAs, their own replication is blocked."

 

BUT!!!

 

"scientists have resolved this paradox by engineering the first ribozyme that is able to replicate folded RNAs, including itself."

 

So scientists had to skip past how nature naturally works an synthetically make it work in a way which it doesn't work in nature....hmm?

 

"We found a solution to the RNA replication paradox by re-thinking how to approach the problem—we stopped trying to mimic existing biology and designed a completely new synthetic strategy."

 

And don't forget the part where the current theory is that this happened near the sea floor by warm vents. Yet in the experiment here they had to use -7C water to concentrate the RNA strands and prevent them from interacting with anything else. They also had to provide a pure environment which wouldn't have existed in the "primordial soup."

 

[valcont]

 

What is VERY CLEAR, is that there is something out there.  99.99% chance.  The one chance that there is NOT something out there is that this might be an elaborate government hoax? 

 

Assuming it is not a hoax, What is not clear is who made it, who is piloting/controlling it, what exactly it is (drone, fighter, experiment, amusement park ride?), what the technology is OR what it's intentions are.

 

This should be getting more press and attention than what it is.

 

There is really no upside for the government to disclose it. If its an enemy craft then they are not prepared to handle it and if its an alien ship then there goes the social/religious fabric of the society and all the fairy tales that comes with it. If it were an organized hoax then you will hear a LOT more about it in the media.

 

[valcont]

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

 

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else.

 

 

 

Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

 

Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition?

[Castanza]

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

 

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else.

 

 

 

Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

 

Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition?

 

You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview."

 

As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there. yeah yeah I know,  God is un-testable in the sense of religious Gods, but there are plenty of things in science we take as "fact" which are indeed un-testable theories as well. I think Stephen Webb makes a lot of sense.

[rkbabang]

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

 

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else.

 

 

 

Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

 

Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition?

 

If life exists here, then it is possible that exists in other places too. 

 

Life exists, so we can say that life originated somewhere. That could be either here on Earth,  somewhere else and was transported to Earth (naturally or by other life), or it may have come to be in multiple places in the universe independently.  Even if we are living in a simulation, that means that intelligent beings created that simulation and are living in a universe where life originated somehow.

 

We do not know the answers to these questions and nothing can be ruled out.

 

There does not have to be anything greater than ourselves.  That is a subjective statement anyway depending on your definition of "greater".  There may or may not be something other than ourselves.

 

 

[valcont]

 

You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview."

 

Nope. I can say there is possibility of life else where based on my observation that life exists on this planet. Its a fact and I have several ways to prove the hypothesis. I don't need to understand how planet was created to prove that there may be other planets in the Universe. Probability does the trick here.

 

As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there.

 

Actually it makes no sense. Current hypothesis is based on the fact that life exists here and we have observed it. Let me know when you observe the God almighty.

[Fat Pitch]

People have shown evidence of aerial phenomenon. Many from the Pentagon, NASA, Soviet generals, Royal Air force officers, Mexican government, Brazil, etc.

 

Here's some events you can dig further:

 

1. Roswell - The air-force literally released a statement to the press saying a winged aircraft was recovered which was retracted days later. The sergeant that posed for pictures showing a weather balloon to reporters after the 1st story retraction later said it was indeed a winged aircraft (well after retirement).

 

2. UFO sightings over Washington DC in 1952 - this lasted for a week or two and recorded on radar, photos and motion picture.

 

3. Russian probe mission to Phobos - images were retrieved of a cylinder shaped object captured in visual and infrared cameras. Final images from probe was withheld from public for 20 years until dissolution of the Soviet Union which then the photo was leaked out.

 

4. Sightings at British air force bases which their nuclear missiles were disabled and rendered non operational.

 

So yes there's enough in the public realm to form the opinion we aren't alone and are being observed. We are literally being spoon fed now by the current disclosures.

 

Hey all:

 

When I was a kid, I used to like to read and think about UFO's.  There were books & such detailing people's experiences seeing them & such.  Of course, there was also the Air Force's "Project Bluebook", and Leonard Nemoy's "In Search Of" TV show.  There were lots of photos showing grainy things in the clouds/sky that were UFO's....

 

Fast forward 40 years and there are BILLIONS of high resolution cameras that people carry with them ALL the time.

 

Of course, there are still photos of weird things in the sky from time to time...but no definitive proof.  Photos for the most part remain grainy...showing things way off in the distance.

 

If there are indeed UFO's flying around, you would think somebody would have captured proof of them by now.  OR if the government(s) had conclusive proof, somebody would have spilled the secret by now.

 

Oh well...

[Castanza]

 

You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview."

 

Nope. I can say there is possibility of life else where based on my observation that life exists on this planet. Its a fact and I have several ways to prove the hypothesis. I don't need to understand how planet was created to prove that there may be other planets in the Universe. Probability does the trick here.

 

As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there.

 

Actually it makes no sense. Current hypothesis is based on the fact that life exists here and we have observed it. Let me know when you observe the God almighty.

 

If you can prove life exists elsewhere then NASA wants your number.

 

We observe life as it already exists. We have never observed life being created from nothing. You're blurring lines to fit your hypothesis. I'm simply saying a God could exists, just like you're saying life could begin on its own. You also can't disprove a God with science soooo.

[rkbabang]

 

You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview."

 

Nope. I can say there is possibility of life else where based on my observation that life exists on this planet. Its a fact and I have several ways to prove the hypothesis. I don't need to understand how planet was created to prove that there may be other planets in the Universe. Probability does the trick here.

 

As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there.

 

Actually it makes no sense. Current hypothesis is based on the fact that life exists here and we have observed it. Let me know when you observe the God almighty.

 

If you can prove life exists elsewhere then NASA wants your number.

 

We observe life as it already exists. We have never observed life being created from nothing. You're blurring lines to fit your hypothesis. I'm simply saying a God could exists, just like you're saying life could begin on its own. You also can't disprove a God with science soooo.

 

Is god alive?  If so, then all you are saying is that you think other life besides us exists.

[Castanza]

To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began.

 

1.) We don't know how life started.

 

2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter?

 

So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof?

 

 

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else.

 

 

 

Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves.

 

 

Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition?

 

If life exists here, then it is possible that exists in other places too. 

 

Life exists, so we can say that life originated somewhere. That could be either here on Earth,  somewhere else and was transported to Earth (naturally or by other life), or it may have come to be in multiple places in the universe independently.  Even if we are living in a simulation, that means that intelligent beings created that simulation and are living in a universe where life originated somehow.

 

We do not know the answers to these questions and nothing can be ruled out.

 

There does not have to be anything greater than ourselves.  That is a subjective statement anyway depending on your definition of "greater".  There may or may not be something other than ourselves.

 

I agree exactly with this. My point is that people want to say "fact" when in reality nobody knows and science is far from answering these questions. So really no hypothesis is more ridiculous than another. I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos. But to each their own! Anyways I'll leave you with some quotes from various scientists from various beliefs and fields of study. I'll let you get back to your UFO discussion  :P Sorry to derail the thread!

 

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

 

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

 

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

 

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

 

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

 

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

 

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

 

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

 

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

 

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

 

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall� be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

 

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book,  The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

 

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

 

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

 

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

 

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

 

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

 

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

 

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

 

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

 

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

 

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

 

 

[rkbabang]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

[Castanza]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.