NationStates Jolt Archive

This was inspired by the conspiracy theory thread.

Of course, a large portion of humanity believes in Alien visitors, and many in abductions and a government coverup. However, large portions of the scientific, political, and media professions remain unconvinced, to the point that stating belief in UFO's may not be a good career choice;).

So, the purpose of this thread is to state our various opinions on the different UFO, abduction, and related conspiracy theories, and discuss the evidence or lack their of.

And by the way, I will flame anyone using the term "UFO" as a synonym for "alien space craft". UFO means "unidentified flying object", nothing more.:)

There is life on other planets. It's likely that there's intelligent life on other planets. It's extremely unlikely that they've visited our system.

I suspect that if there is life on other planets, it is probably very intelligent because it hasn't tried to contact us yet. :)

There is life on other planets. It's likely that there's intelligent life on other planets. It's extremely unlikely that they've visited our system.

Agree with the first two. Disagree with the third one.

Its perfectly possible to travel from one system to another. In fact, we could probably have done it by now if our space programs were properly funded.:mad:

Using nuclear fusion, we could reach another star in 50 years, at a cost of around 2 trillion dollars for a payload of 1000 tons(source: Robert Zubrin's book Entering Space). Using laser-driven sails or a hypothetical self-refueling ship using magnetic funnels (the "Ramjet" design), we could aproach light speed. That's less than 5 years from the nearest star. Plenty of species might consider it worth the cost, especially if they have cheap flights to orbit, abundant fusion, and longer life-spans than ours.

So its not impossible. Nor would we nessissarily have the means to detect them if they came. So it becomes a question of weather or why they would want to, which is unanswerable without contacting them.

Yeah, but why would they want to? Especially OUR system? If I was an alien species, I wouldn't want to contact humanity.

I suspect that if there is life on other planets, it is probably very intelligent because it hasn't tried to contact us yet. :)

Or maybe they are so much more advanced than us (or think they are) that it never occurs to them to "contact" us.

If we were to believe the abduction accounts, they remind me of nothing so much as the human relationship with chimps. They experiment on us, observe us, maybe talk to us. A dirty few of them may even want to have sex with us. They don't care if we see their vehicals. But would it even occur to them to make official contact with us?

Yeah, but why would they want to? Especially OUR system? If I was an alien species, I wouldn't want to contact humanity.

That assumes that we are so far below the rest of the Galaxy that we are automatically outcasts. Why should we be? We have observed exactly one type of technologically advanced species, ours, but isn't it more plausible that we are the norm rather than the extreem?

Perhaps even more frightening to many people than the concept of being alone, is the concept that we are not unique. What if the rest of the Galaxy is, just like us?

Then again, we might not even be on a level where it would occur to them to "contact" us.

I suspect that if there is life on other planets, it is probably very intelligent because it hasn't tried to contact us yet. :)

And yet here you are.

I imagine there probably is alien life out there, but I doubt they've visited us, especially not to the extent a lot of these conspiracy nuts think, and I doubt that they bomb around nabbing yokels from the middle of no where.

That assumes that we are so far below the rest of the Galaxy that we are automatically outcasts. Why should we be? We have observed exactly one type of technologically advanced species, ours, but isn't it more plausible that we are the norm rather than the extreem?

Believe me, we're down the ass end of the scale.

Believe me, we're down the ass end of the scale.

Now what have I told you about telling people the truth about aliens?

<flashy things everyone else who's posted>

There just may be seed among us already.
*pets Venus Flytrap*

Alien life exists
Intelligent Aliens exist

of the first two i have absolute direct personal knowledge of being true

Alien intelligence is visiting/has visited Earth:

possibly/probably, actually certainly, but i won't go into certain details

The Government is covering it up:

possibly probably to some degree, though perhaps not at the level and to the degree that has often been suggested

People are being abducted:

possibly, but here we're getting into somewhat questionable territory, i mean, if it happens once in a while its not as common as some seem, for possibly reasons of their own, to want us to think. i mean, let me point out, those that are/have visited, here, that's NOT what the're here FOR. why would it be?

(they could be here for reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with 'us', just like how wwii airplanes were to cargo cults in the south pacific)

Non-Alien but still paranormal explanation (explain please):

well i don't know about paranormal, but certainly psycological happens also. i don't mean instead of, i'm just aggreeing that both things, that its not unlikely for both things to be happening, that people of course can confuse the one with the other, but that their doing so doesn't mean that the other doesn't happen too. this isn't a one or the other propisition, and i see no reason BOTH can't be happening.

also i mean like yes, 'mysterious forces beyond our comprehension' exist also, but these are entirely different and seperate things. 'ufo aliens' are just PEOPLE, from other worlds, where people don't look anything people here, but still basically, just people, just like the terrorists from the eastern hemisphere, western europe, that invaded the western hemisphere starting in earnest arround 600 years ago, whatever anyone here might have thought they were, inside those tin suits of theirs, we still just people too. so ok, someone from 61 signi 4 doesn't look very much like someone from madrid or barcelona, might not even be able to breathe our earth's atmosphere, but the're still, fundimentally, just people.

Don't know/unsure/don't care(please explain):

i'm definately not "unsure", my pervious lives were on other, "alien" worlds, and I'M here.

Their are no Aliens:

i think if anyone believes that, this is the big nonsense howler. the only reason to suggest that there aren't or can't be, is our own collective ego.

Alien life exists
Intelligent Aliens exist

of the first two i have absolute direct personal knowledge of being true


DAMN IT! <Flashy things the thread again>

More seriously: How so?

DAMN IT! <Flashy things the thread again>

More seriously: How so?

now THAT would be telling.

but i was born with dreams/memories of previous lives on very obviously and very much different and very much other, tangable material worlds.

now THAT would be telling.

but i was born with dreams/memories of previous lives on very obviously and very much different and very much other, tangable material worlds.

Not to belittle your experiences, but how do you know your not delusional, or just having vivid dreams?

I'm sympathetic to the goals of the UFO movement, and I believe aliens are visiting this world. That said, I recognize that the battle is to convice skeptics, not believers, and that to do that solid evidence is needed.

There just may be seed among us already.
*pets Venus Flytrap*

I don't know if your joking, but I've actually seen the case seriously made that the Venus Fly Trap might be of alien origin. I don't have a source for that now, but I'll post it later. Interesting to read, if a bit far out in terms of theories.

This was inspired by the conspiracy theory thread.

Of course, a large portion of humanity believes in Alien visitors, and many in abductions and a government coverup. However, large portions of the scientific, political, and media professions remain unconvinced, to the point that stating belief in UFO's may not be a good career choice;).


So... what you're saying is - people who are qualified to know, or in a position to have good information about it... say it's bullshit.

I think there's your answer.

Wait?! The aliens are supposed to be abducting us?! Well I got the wrong end of the stick.... *releases imprisoned aliens*

So... what you're saying is - people who are qualified to know, or in a position to have good information about it... say it's bullshit.

I think there's your answer.

Well, not unanimously. Their are members of the scientific community and the media who treat it seriously (Larry King might be the most famous on the media side). Their's also the sizable list of former astronaughts and military personel who have reported sightings.

You're going to need to do better than that. The most frusterating part of the UFO debate for me is that both sides take their possission for granted, resorting to shaky logic and personal attacks far to often.

Frankly, if millions of people are reporting an experience (in the case of abduction reports often a severly traumatizing one), then its worthy of investigation. If nothing else, its a psychological epidemic to rival many that get more serious treatment.

Agree with the first two. Disagree with the third one.

Its perfectly possible to travel from one system to another. In fact, we could probably have done it by now if our space programs were properly funded.:mad:

Using nuclear fusion, we could reach another star in 50 years, at a cost of around 2 trillion dollars for a payload of 1000 tons(source: Robert Zubrin's book Entering Space). Using laser-driven sails or a hypothetical self-refueling ship using magnetic funnels (the "Ramjet" design), we could aproach light speed. That's less than 5 years from the nearest star. Plenty of species might consider it worth the cost, especially if they have cheap flights to orbit, abundant fusion, and longer life-spans than ours.

So its not impossible. Nor would we nessissarily have the means to detect them if they came. So it becomes a question of weather or why they would want to, which is unanswerable without contacting them.

Even if we could build a vessel that could approximate the speed of light, that's not 5 years unless we could bounce straight to that speed. You might want to think through the math before you speculate. Most of a journey between stars would either be acceleration, or deceleration.

Even if we could build a vessel that could approximate the speed of light, that's not 5 years unless we could bounce straight to that speed. You might want to think through the math before you speculate. Most of a journey between stars would either be acceleration, or deceleration.

Again, I beleive this is covered in the afformentioned source. However, the copy is my brother's and its currently on the far side of Canada since I just moved. Thus, it will be difficult for me to back up those claims with a source.

Well, not unanimously. Their are members of the scientific community and the media who treat it seriously (Larry King might be the most famous on the media side).


I'm a scientist, by trade and by inclination - and I've never met a single scientist that would support the serious assertion that there are aliens among us. Maybe there is intelligent life out there somewhere, to discount that possibility wouldn't be scientific... but the evidence certainly doesn't support 'them' being 'here'.


Their's also the sizable list of former astronaughts and military personel who have reported sightings.


You pointed it out yourself - an unidentified flying object doesn't equate to alien intelligence among us.


You're going to need to do better than that. The most frusterating part of the UFO debate for me is that both sides take their possission for granted, resorting to shaky logic and personal attacks far to often.


Do better than what? If the evidence doesn't support the concept, then there's probably no conspiracy. I'm not saying there's no alien life. I'm not even saying there's no possibility that aliens have ever been in our neck of the woods. What I'm saying is - the establishments that would have best access to the information don't seem to back your claims - which means the bulk of the belief must reside among people who are totally unqualified to analyse the data... or even have access to it.


Frankly, if millions of people are reporting an experience (in the case of abduction reports often a severly traumatizing one), then its worthy of investigation. If nothing else, its a psychological epidemic to rival many that get more serious treatment.

The same stories have been told for thousands of years. 200 years ago, it was fairies abducting people, and 2000 years ago it was demons or spirits. The stories aren't new, and are no more evidence of aliens at work, than they are of angels or fairies.

Even if we could build a vessel that could approximate the speed of light, that's not 5 years unless we could bounce straight to that speed. You might want to think through the math before you speculate. Most of a journey between stars would either be acceleration, or deceleration.

Indeed, any kind of thrust that could get us up to speed would crush us like bugs due to the inirtia. Curiously enough, if one could maintain a constant rate of acceleration os that those inside the ship would feel approximately like earth's gravity (10 m/s^2) it would take almost exactly 1 year to reach the speed of light, then you flip the ship around, and it takes another full year to slow it to a stop.

Again, I beleive this is covered in the afformentioned source. However, the copy is my brother's and its currently on the far side of Canada since I just moved. Thus, it will be difficult for me to back up those claims with a source.

If we assume that the nearest star is a little more than 4 light years from us, it would take four years just to cover that distance IF you were moving at the speed of light the whole way.

You are arguing - effectively - that a solarsail or ramdrive would be able to accelerate a vessel from orbital velocity to lightspeed and travel half that distance in two and a half years, and decelerate at the same rate. This sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.

Who wrote this alleged book? Why aren't they allowing for the fact that solarsail technology would just be expensive suicide in intra-systemic travel?

Excuse me, i'm late for a 8 o'clock probing...

Moreover, the problem of going from 0 to c and then decelerating from c to 0 is that you only cover one light year in a two year trip (if you accelerate uniformly to your cruising speed then decelerate your average velocity is one half your maximum velocity). If you were to travel more than a light year, you'd have your crew in essentially zero gravity. Any long trip would require basically a series of accelerations, and decelerations in order to maintain a uniform gravity. Likewise, our hypothetical ship could probably never achieve a velocity of more than 2/3 C. Beyond that, the energy requirements are just too huge to accelerate the ship further. So we would only average a speed of one third light speed, once we factor in the accelerations and decelerations required to keep your crew in earth like gravity (ignoring the fact that for half your trip the floor would be the ceiling)

Of course, a large portion of humanity believes in Alien visitors, and many in abductions and a government coverup.

They get it all wrong. There is a government conspiracy - but it's a conspiracy to pretend that there might be some aliens and the government is very unsuccessfully trying to cover up their traces on Earth.

The key point is to distract people from real-life problems and real government's wrongdoings, and focus their attention on something insignificant. Another reason is to ensure everyone that the government is so incompetent at covert operations that it can't possibly successfully hide anything from us, so we can trust it.

If we assume that the nearest star is a little more than 4 light years from us, it would take four years just to cover that distance IF you were moving at the speed of light the whole way.

and again, once we factor in the considerations that we don't want our crew squashed like bugs or spending years in a weightless environment, it becomes more like 12 years

I'm a scientist, by trade and by inclination - and I've never met a single scientist that would support the serious assertion that there are aliens among us. Maybe there is intelligent life out there somewhere, to discount that possibility wouldn't be scientific... but the evidence certainly doesn't support 'them' being 'here'.

I've never met such a scientist either, but I've seen interviews with them.

Unfortunately, the main body of evidence is eyewitness testimony, but their are cases where eyewitness accounts are supported by physical evidence such as burns. Their are also case of UFOs picked up on multiple sets of radar with hundreds of witnesses. In short, their is evidence enought to warrent further investigation down this line of enquiry, even if that evidence does not yet meet the standerds of scientific proof.

You pointed it out yourself - an unidentified flying object doesn't equate to alien intelligence among us.

Quite true. However, I have heard that 10 % of UFO sightings remain unexplained. Now, if one has found no explanation among proven phenomina, isn't it reasonable to expand your investigation to include the possibillity of an undiscovered phenominon? Of the "alternative" explanations put forward, I find the alien explanation the most credible, since statistically alien intelligence almost certainly exists, and their is no physical reason why the could not reach us. Finally, I would point out that some of those witnesses are more than qualified to testify that the UFOs behavior is not within the known capabillities of our technology. You want to bring out expert testimony, then so can I.

Do better than what? If the evidence doesn't support the concept, then there's probably no conspiracy. I'm not saying there's no alien life. I'm not even saying there's no possibility that aliens have ever been in our neck of the woods. What I'm saying is - the establishments that would have best access to the information don't seem to back your claims - which means the bulk of the belief must reside among people who are totally unqualified to analyse the data... or even have access to it.

It is a poor argument to base your possission on that no qualified experts support the alien theory, as such an argument is demonstrably false. Its true that the majority may not be believers. However, their have been pleanty of theories that were disparraged by the bulk of expert opinion and were later verified. Furthermore, many experts may privately believe theories that they do not voice in public, for fear of a proffessional backlash.

The same stories have been told for thousands of years. 200 years ago, it was fairies abducting people, and 2000 years ago it was demons or spirits. The stories aren't new, and are no more evidence of aliens at work, than they are of angels or fairies.

One can counter this argument in a couple different ways. First, I can demand that you demonstrate that the stories are similar enough, in general, to conclude that they are merely the same story with different names.

Secondly, I can point out that its just as plausible that those were attempts to explain an actual phenomino in the same way that Zeus's thunderbolts were an attempt to explain lightning. In short, this argument proves nothing accept that whatever phenomino we're dealing with is very old and has been witnessed by a lot of people. If anything, you've strengthened my case.

However, this proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that aliens aren't visiting us. You can only demonstrait that we lack proof that they are. However, since I am proposing a new and unproven theory, the burden of proof is on myself. Theirfor, I will attempt in future posts to provide specific cases as evidence for my point of view, and invite you or anyone else who wishes to do so to refute them. This may be dificult for me, since most of my refference books are across the country and the internet is not always a reliable source. However, I will do my best.

If we assume that the nearest star is a little more than 4 light years from us, it would take four years just to cover that distance IF you were moving at the speed of light the whole way.

You are arguing - effectively - that a solarsail or ramdrive would be able to accelerate a vessel from orbital velocity to lightspeed and travel half that distance in two and a half years, and decelerate at the same rate. This sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.

Who wrote this alleged book? Why aren't they allowing for the fact that solarsail technology would just be expensive suicide in intra-systemic travel?

I find this frusterating, since my lack of access to the source of my arguments weakens the case I could otherwise pressent.

I can respond to that "alleged book" comment however. Do not presume to accuse me of making up sources that do not exist. And if you doubt the qualifications of the author, google "Robert Zubrin." Entering Space is not a book about the UFO phenominon. It is a serious technical and political argument in favor of a program of manned space exploration and colonization, writen by a credible scientist and engineer.

They get it all wrong. There is a government conspiracy - but it's a conspiracy to pretend that there might be some aliens and the government is very unsuccessfully trying to cover up their traces on Earth.

The key point is to distract people from real-life problems and real government's wrongdoings, and focus their attention on something insignificant. Another reason is to ensure everyone that the government is so incompetent at covert operations that it can't possibly successfully hide anything from us, so we can trust it.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.:confused:

And my sincerest apologies for the triple post. I keep going back and finding more things worth responding to.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.:confused:

Well, think of it. We still have no idea who killed the Kennedy, and there are hundreds of Cold War secrets lying untouched. Would the government fail so spectacularly to hide aliens, if it was trying to? Would it let the Ufologists thrive from small groups to open press to their own TV series? Of course no.

By regularly "leaking" data about aliens, the government convinces us that it's too incompetent at hiding anything. And then we automatically assume that any conspiracy, if it existed, would be as full of holes as the UFO one.
That gives the government a carte-blanche to actually covertly do things we wouldn't like, say "finding" WMD in Iraq, and dismiss anyone who notices as a "conspiracy nutjob like these Ufologists".

I'd be surprised if there wasn't some other form of life out there in the universe, when you think of the massive amount of stars and all the planets outside the solar system. Maybe some of it could even be intelligent life. But I'm not convinced about the whole alien UFO thing, or any of the associated conspiracy theories. Lack of evidence. I don't believe any of those abductee types, they're just lunatics or lying attention seekers (Or both). I think a more plausible explanation for UFOs would be advanced prototype military aircraft, perhaps getting a little exaggerated by some of the people who see it.

Agree with the first two. Disagree with the third one.

Its perfectly possible to travel from one system to another. In fact, we could probably have done it by now if our space programs were properly funded.:mad:

Using nuclear fusion, we could reach another star in 50 years, at a cost of around 2 trillion dollars for a payload of 1000 tons(source: Robert Zubrin's book Entering Space). Using laser-driven sails or a hypothetical self-refueling ship using magnetic funnels (the "Ramjet" design), we could aproach light speed. That's less than 5 years from the nearest star. Plenty of species might consider it worth the cost, especially if they have cheap flights to orbit, abundant fusion, and longer life-spans than ours.

So its not impossible. Nor would we nessissarily have the means to detect them if they came. So it becomes a question of weather or why they would want to, which is unanswerable without contacting them.

No. It's theoretically possible to propose ideas that might take us to another star system. Doing so safely and effectively is simply beyond our capabilities at the moment. For example, we do not currently have controllable nuclear fusion beyond the break even point, and a system such as Orion would be hard pressed to carry enough fuel to get to another system in a reasonable time.

Space is big. Space is, in fact, bloody huge. We don't really have many plausible* spacecraft designs that could average travelling much faster than 1% of c, so that's about 400 years to reach Alpha Centauri**. And when we get to Alpha Centauri? Nothing there.

All of the really nice and stupidly fast spaceship designs require massive theoretical advances, a good ways beyond anything we can produce yet.

*Based on technology we either directly have or can directly engineer. Fusion, for example, is discounted (except for nuclear explosives).

**That I am aware of. I'd be rather impressed with someone who can produce a plausible design that can reach an average speed of 10% c over 4 light years.

That assumes that we are so far below the rest of the Galaxy that we are automatically outcasts. Why should we be? We have observed exactly one type of technologically advanced species, ours, but isn't it more plausible that we are the norm rather than the extreem?

Perhaps even more frightening to many people than the concept of being alone, is the concept that we are not unique. What if the rest of the Galaxy is, just like us?

Then again, we might not even be on a level where it would occur to them to "contact" us.

Simple chance. Think about how long it has taken us to make most of the major advances in western civilisation. In only 500 years, we have moved from barely understanding how our own solar system was arranged, to launching space missions, probing the secrets of the atom, and inventing wireless communication. Hell, 500 years ago we didn't even have Chemistry. We've only known the structure of an atom for barely 100 years, and still haven't resolved subatomic theory in a satisfactory manner. We only got off this planets surface in the last 100 years, and out of its atmosphere in the last 50.

Say, just for the hell of it, we discover extra terrestrial life tomorrow. We find a system much like Earth, with a similar atmosphere, and even pick up radio emissions. It's incredibly unlikely they'll be within 50000 light years of us. Given how much we've advanced in the last 50000 years, care to speculate what they'll be like now?

Alternately, what if we do spot an earthlike planet, and it has inhabitants, and they're at a similar level of development to us? We won't be able to tell, as our information will be well past 50000 years out of date. Space is simply to vast for information to propagate fast enough.

Now, I do feel that it is almost certain extraterrestrial life exists. There's astronauts, for one. However, most of it will quite possibly be completely unrecognisable to us as life. Of the rest, the chances are incredibly high they will either outmatch us completely in technology (consider a civ which got started just 500 years earlier, and speculate where they might be now), or be completely outmatched (how about one which got started 500 years later).

The chance of recognisable extraterrestrials, at a similar level of technology, happening to visit this system, is akin to the chance of picking 0.29519592357 when selecting a real number from 0 to 100 at random. Yes, it is possible. However, it's probability is 0, as it is so unlikely.

What ever floats your boat their buddy.

I've never met such a scientist either, but I've seen interviews with them.


Which shows us that such scientists are sufficiently rare that you're FAR more likely to have seen one on a tv program, than to have ever met one.


Unfortunately, the main body of evidence is eyewitness testimony, but their are cases where eyewitness accounts are supported by physical evidence such as burns.


And I've seen cases of religious experience where believers have been bestowed with apparently divine punishments... and I've aslo seen those cases where the damage was either visibly inflicted by the person him or herself... or where the apparent damage was actually a kind of 'hysterical' reaction.


Their are also case of UFOs picked up on multiple sets of radar with hundreds of witnesses. In short, their is evidence enought to warrent further investigation down this line of enquiry, even if that evidence does not yet meet the standerds of scientific proof.


How exactly do you want it to be 'investigated', then - if you acknowledge it can't be investigated by scientific means?


Quite true. However, I have heard that 10 % of UFO sightings remain unexplained.


Wouldn't that be exactly WHY they're called unidentified flying objects.


Now, if one has found no explanation among proven phenomina, isn't it reasonable to expand your investigation to include the possibillity of an undiscovered phenominon? Of the "alternative" explanations put forward, I find the alien explanation the most credible, since statistically alien intelligence almost certainly exists,


So - of all the alternativ explanations, the one you find most credible is the one that invokes entities we have absolutely no evidence to support the existence of?

Yeah - that's GOT to be more likely than a previously unexplored weather phenomenon...


...and their is no physical reason why the could not reach us.


Of course there is - distance and time.

Specifically - the distance over which an entity would have to travel to find us, the time it would take to do so - and the fact that entities even from our own galaxy might be taking tens of thousands of years to even receive electromagnetic radiation from our sun. They wouldn't even know there was intelligent life on this planet for another 10,000 years.


Finally, I would point out that some of those witnesses are more than qualified to testify that the UFOs behavior is not within the known capabillities of our technology. You want to bring out expert testimony, then so can I.


There are no experts on UFO's.


It is a poor argument to base your possission on that no qualified experts support the alien theory, as such an argument is demonstrably false.


Which makes it a good job I didn't say that, eh?


Its true that the majority may not be believers. However, their have been pleanty of theories that were disparraged by the bulk of expert opinion and were later verified. Furthermore, many experts may privately believe theories that they do not voice in public, for fear of a proffessional backlash.


Missing the point. The prevalent adherence to UFO stories is from uneducated people. The story holds much less attraction to people actually educated in relevent fields.

Does that mean there are no aliens? Of course not, but the simple fact that this is a subject where knowing more about the matter makes you less likely to believe it, strongly suggests that there's no real evidence.


One can counter this argument in a couple different ways. First, I can demand that you demonstrate that the stories are similar enough, in general, to conclude that they are merely the same story with different names.

Secondly, I can point out that its just as plausible that those were attempts to explain an actual phenomino in the same way that Zeus's thunderbolts were an attempt to explain lightning. In short, this argument proves nothing accept that whatever phenomino we're dealing with is very old and has been witnessed by a lot of people. If anything, you've strengthened my case.


Or alternatively, you and your stories of 'aliens' are actually strengthening the case for angels - like the Throne level of angels, described in Ezekiel as being like a wheel, with eyes around the outside, etc.

That's the problem - you want to co-opt their mythology to support your own, but it works just as well the other way around.


However, this proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that aliens aren't visiting us. You can only demonstrait that we lack proof that they are. However, since I am proposing a new and unproven theory, the burden of proof is on myself. Theirfor, I will attempt in future posts to provide specific cases as evidence for my point of view, and invite you or anyone else who wishes to do so to refute them. This may be dificult for me, since most of my refference books are across the country and the internet is not always a reliable source. However, I will do my best.

Aliens are probably at least as likely as god. And I don't believe in god either. I just don't seem to be able to make the logical leap to believing in things that cannot be verified.

I don't know if your joking, but I've actually seen the case seriously made that the Venus Fly Trap might be of alien origin. I don't have a source for that now, but I'll post it later. Interesting to read, if a bit far out in terms of theories.A good chance we're referring to similar circumstances.
*nods*

Reading Tip: Carl Sagan - The Demon Haunted World (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223366479&sr=1-1)

Especially the so called "believers" should read it, if you're not you should still read it it's a nice tome of clear thinking, but his debuking of the alien mythos will intrest you less :)

I voted, alien life exists (option 1), on option 2 however; it might, it might have, it might yet.

I don't know if aliens exist. I don't care if aliens exist. There are enough natural mysteries in the world without getting excited about - ghosts, goblins, ghouls, aliens, lake monsters and all the paranormal, white-light, extra-terrestrial, conspiracy theory bs. Make movies about it, write good fiction about it, but please, don't start believing in it

I believe that there are intelligent aliens - the chances of us being the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy are simply too small. However, I doubt that they have visited Earth - or, if they have, that they have left any evidence.

UFOs can be many things. Frankly, I agree with those who suspect the government of deliberately propping up these theories, so as to distract from what they are actually doing. And in all honesty, I approve of it. The average US citizen, if he saw a very exotic aircraft, would probably believe it to be extraterrestrial. Therefore, the US can test prototype aircraft outside uber-restricted airspace without people realizing it. They've found a way to use mob stupidity to make our country safer (building advanced aircraft counts as making our country safer in my book).

I'm open to the possibility of just about anything - including, for that matter, alien visitors. Keeping an open mind is critical if we are to discover the truth behind these events.

Keeping an open mind is critical if we are to discover the truth behind these events.

I agree, but I use that mindset to unravel the secrets of beer. There must be more behind it than just alcohol!

I agree, but I use that mindset to unravel the secrets of beer. There must be more behind it than just alcohol!
24 to a case, 24 hours in a day - I see what you mean, surely that is not a coincidence.

Which shows us that such scientists are sufficiently rare that you're FAR more likely to have seen one on a tv program, than to have ever met one.

To be fair, I haven't hung out with a lot of scientists except my high school teachers, and I doubt they count.

And I've seen cases of religious experience where believers have been bestowed with apparently divine punishments... and I've aslo seen those cases where the damage was either visibly inflicted by the person him or herself... or where the apparent damage was actually a kind of 'hysterical' reaction.

Fair point. Are their ways to test a witness to see if they're psychologically prone to that sort of thing?

How exactly do you want it to be 'investigated', then - if you acknowledge it can't be investigated by scientific means?

I acknowledge no such thing. True, the current evidence may not meet the standards of most of the scientific community, but that used to be true for a lot of other things that are now accepted. The answer: do more research, until you find something more substantial.

By your logic, anything not already proven is not worthy of scientific enquiry.


Wouldn't that be exactly WHY they're called unidentified flying objects.

I should have said "ten percent of so-called UFOS." Leaving ten percent that are genuine UFOs, and have not been explained by the body of conventional knowledge. Granted, some of them may not be that well investigated, but some appear to be genuine mysteries.

So - of all the alternativ explanations, the one you find most credible is the one that invokes entities we have absolutely no evidence to support the existence of?

Yeah - that's GOT to be more likely than a previously unexplored weather phenomenon...

You have nothing to support a "previously unexplored weather phenominon" other than the fact that it sounds more ordinary than an alien space craft. What type of weather phenominon? Their'd have to be quite a few types I suspect, all pretty wiered, to explain the diversity of UFO sightings.

Essentially, your just putting forward a completely hypothetical phenominon that sounds better through the lense of your personal prefferences. What kind of weather is this? Is their evidence for a new weather phenominon that would explain any of these sightings? Your explanation is no better than mine. Again, we know alien life is possible, and we know it could reach here if it wanted to. While some UFO's are so bizzar that that alone cannot explain them, others can probably be explained in this fasion.

Some are probably new weather phenominon, or one of a host of other things. But right now, your explanation has as much scientific validity as mine.

Of course there is - distance and time.

Specifically - the distance over which an entity would have to travel to find us, the time it would take to do so - and the fact that entities even from our own galaxy might be taking tens of thousands of years to even receive electromagnetic radiation from our sun. They wouldn't even know there was intelligent life on this planet for another 10,000 years.

First, I'd like to address the question of getting here. If doing so were more or less impossible, I'd have no argument, so it really is a fundimental question to this whole debate.

I've already explained a number of ways that one can travel between stars without violating physics, and provided a credible source which you dismissed, implying in the process that I might have fabricated the source. Very intelligently, you raised, I believe, the question of decelleration adding to flight times. While this mearly lengthens the trip a bit, not prevents it, its a point worth addressing.

The answer I've been reffering to is the use of a "magnetic sail" to slow down the ship as it aproches the target star. I believe an abbreviation for the concept is M2P2. Google it. Beyond that I can't say more, as again, I don't have my source books.

There are no experts on UFO's.

Nonsense. I was tempted to use a stronger description, but I'm trying to keep this civil.

Shall I give you a list of names?

Which makes it a good job I didn't say that, eh?

If I missrepresented or exagerated your words, I apologise.

Missing the point. The prevalent adherence to UFO stories is from uneducated people. The story holds much less attraction to people actually educated in relevent fields.

Does that mean there are no aliens? Of course not, but the simple fact that this is a subject where knowing more about the matter makes you less likely to believe it, strongly suggests that there's no real evidence.

As I said, its not at all clear cut. Besides, most witnessess may not be PHDS (most people aren't), but I'm sure their are pleanty of witnesses who have a decent education.

Or alternatively, you and your stories of 'aliens' are actually strengthening the case for angels - like the Throne level of angels, described in Ezekiel as being like a wheel, with eyes around the outside, etc.

That's the problem - you want to co-opt their mythology to support your own, but it works just as well the other way around.

Fair point I guess. Though I'd point out that alien life and interstellar travel are both possible within the known laws of science, while I doubt that's the case for many of those older mythologies.


Aliens are probably at least as likely as god. And I don't believe in god either. I just don't seem to be able to make the logical leap to believing in things that cannot be verified.

God, like many of those afformentioned ancient mythologies, is possible. Aliens are better supported by scientific evidence because we know that their are other planets, we have some idea of the conditions life requires, we know such conditions could exist on other worlds, and the size of the universe makes it nearly a certainty statistically.

Additionally, interstellar travel is completely possible under the known and accepted laws of science. It we weren't collectively so apathetic, we'd have done it ourselves.

<snip>

First, I'd like to address the question of getting here. If doing so were more or less impossible, I'd have no argument, so it really is a fundimental question to this whole debate.

I've already explained a number of ways that one can travel between stars without violating physics, and provided a credible source which you dismissed, implying in the process that I might have fabricated the source. Very intelligently, you raised, I believe, the question of decelleration adding to flight times. While this mearly lengthens the trip a bit, not prevents it, its a point worth addressing.

The answer I've been reffering to is the use of a "magnetic sail" to slow down the ship as it aproches the target star. I believe an abbreviation for the concept is M2P2. Google it. Beyond that I can't say more, as again, I don't have my source books.

<snip>

Additionally, interstellar travel is completely possible under the known and accepted laws of science. It we weren't collectively so apathetic, we'd have done it ourselves.

I believe I have already addressed the problems involved with travelling over interstellar distances rather completely, and pointed out as a result why expecting any intelligent life form (should another exist in our galaxy (which I feel is rather likely (even if we wouldn't recognise it (might I be overusing parens?)))) to have happened to reach us is completely absurd.

The farthest that we might have reached so far, travelling between the stars, is Proxima Centauri, assuming you're being incredibly generous about the velocities we could have reached with 50s tech. As such velocities are out of the question in an era when we couldn't reach the moon, and providing life support for such a long space journey is also beyond our ability at the time, no, we could not have travelled between stars. Unless you require us to have worked together collectively with this as a single goal for the last few hundred years, and made many of the discoveries of modern and near future science far ahead of schedule, we simply could not have done it.

To be fair, I haven't hung out with a lot of scientists except my high school teachers, and I doubt they count.


I have. Literally thousands. Over a course of decades.


Fair point. Are their ways to test a witness to see if they're psychologically prone to that sort of thing?


We're all prone to that kind of thing - that's how our brains are wired.


I acknowledge no such thing. True, the current evidence may not meet the standards of most of the scientific community, but that used to be true for a lot of other things that are now accepted. The answer: do more research, until you find something more substantial.


It's not a matter of 'standards', per se - it's having something objective to work from. Science is a useless pet for philosophy - you have to feed it data twice a day.


By your logic, anything not already proven is not worthy of scientific enquiry.


No no... anything that cannot be MEASURED is a problem, though... and anything that cannot be falsified is impossible to rationally study with science.


I should have said "ten percent of so-called UFOS." Leaving ten percent that are genuine UFOs, and have not been explained by the body of conventional knowledge. Granted, some of them may not be that well investigated, but some appear to be genuine mysteries.


Being a mystery doesn't make you aliens.


You have nothing to support a "previously unexplored weather phenominon" other than the fact that it sounds more ordinary than an alien space craft. What type of weather phenominon? Their'd have to be quite a few types I suspect, all pretty wiered, to explain the diversity of UFO sightings.


There are many and varied types of weather phenomena.


Essentially, your just putting forward a completely hypothetical phenominon that sounds better through the lense of your personal prefferences. What kind of weather is this? Is their evidence for a new weather phenominon that would explain any of these sightings? Your explanation is no better than mine. Again, we know alien life is possible, and we know it could reach here if it wanted to. While some UFO's are so bizzar that that alone cannot explain them, others can probably be explained in this fasion.


No - the reason I suggest weather phenomena is that, while it's an incredibly generic response, it has already been the explanation of hundreds of types of unidentified mysteries. From 'marsh light' to 'ball lightning', weather is a curious beasty, and we're still only in our infancy of understanding it.


Some are probably new weather phenominon, or one of a host of other things. But right now, your explanation has as much scientific validity as mine.


On the contrary, mine has the advantage of being documented, verifiable, even repeatable under the right circumstances. You can create clouds in a laboratory... I've never seen anyone synthesise aliens.


I've already explained a number of ways that one can travel between stars without violating physics, and provided a credible source which you dismissed, implying in the process that I might have fabricated the source. Very intelligently, you raised, I believe, the question of decelleration adding to flight times. While this mearly lengthens the trip a bit, not prevents it, its a point worth addressing.


I didn't say you fabricated the source - however, it's 'evidence' is only alleged at this point.

There are a whole lot of things I didn't mention, or only touched on lightly. The simple fact is - we've still got insufficient data to know if one COULD make it to the nearest star, even at lightspeed... we have no real understanding of what would happen to a human body approaching even a fraction of c, we have no real understanding of what effects radiation might have in interstellar space. We have no idea of how THOSE two things could affect each other. We have too little data for the effects of gravity. Too little for the effects of absolute containment lightyears from your homeworld.

Interstellar travel is not as cut and dried as you like to pretend... there is much more about it that we DON'T yet know, than that we do.


The answer I've been reffering to is the use of a "magnetic sail" to slow down the ship as it aproches the target star. I believe an abbreviation for the concept is M2P2. Google it. Beyond that I can't say more, as again, I don't have my source books.


That's not how it works - you claim the evidence, it's on you to provide it.

It sounds like you're conflating two ideas - the magnetic scoop, and the solarsail.


Nonsense. I was tempted to use a stronger description, but I'm trying to keep this civil.

Shall I give you a list of names?


You can cite all the names you like.

Until you can show me someone who has hard physical evidence, you've not got 'experts', you've got collectors of tales.


As I said, its not at all clear cut. Besides, most witnessess may not be PHDS (most people aren't), but I'm sure their are pleanty of witnesses who have a decent education.


I'm not talking about 'did you finish school' - I'm talking about 'are you qualified to make objective analysis of the data'.


Fair point I guess. Though I'd point out that alien life and interstellar travel are both possible within the known laws of science, while I doubt that's the case for many of those older mythologies.


You're saying that older mythologies didn't allow for interstellar travel?


God, like many of those afformentioned ancient mythologies, is possible. Aliens are better supported by scientific evidence because we know that their are other planets, we have some idea of the conditions life requires,


We have some idea what life-like US requires. We know there are SOME other planets, although none that so far resembles ours.

That's the thing - what we 'know' about alien life, is no more than what we 'know' about angels... or goblins.


...we know such conditions could exist on other worlds,


But we've yet to see any evidence it does, or has.


...and the size of the universe makes it nearly a certainty statistically.


And the complexity of processes it seems it would have taken for life to start here makes it a statistical certainty we're the only example.

There's no point talking statistics. There either IS alien intelligence, or there ISN'T, and either way, statistics is incapable of telling us.


Additionally, interstellar travel is completely possible under the known and accepted laws of science. It we weren't collectively so apathetic, we'd have done it ourselves.

No - we'd have a lot more information, though.

Well, think of it. We still have no idea who killed the Kennedy, and there are hundreds of Cold War secrets lying untouched. Would the government fail so spectacularly to hide aliens, if it was trying to? Would it let the Ufologists thrive from small groups to open press to their own TV series? Of course no.

By regularly "leaking" data about aliens, the government convinces us that it's too incompetent at hiding anything. And then we automatically assume that any conspiracy, if it existed, would be as full of holes as the UFO one.
That gives the government a carte-blanche to actually covertly do things we wouldn't like, say "finding" WMD in Iraq, and dismiss anyone who notices as a "conspiracy nutjob like these Ufologists".

There is no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. The only question is wheter or not he was part of a larger conspiracy or not. I highly we'll ever know the answer to that with any certainty.

Aliens are real, that's why I live in a bunker with several thousand guns and millions of pounds of ammo... When the inevitable alien invasion comes (after Z-Day, of course), I'll be ready!

Aliens are real, that's why I live in a bunker with several thousand guns and millions of pounds of ammo... When the inevitable alien invasion comes (after Z-Day, of course), I'll be ready!

Guns. Check.

Ammo. Check.

Looking back on it, you'll wish you'd spared some space for food...

I forget who, but they said that our planet was a stop on an alien's spring break trip, and what we deal with its their drunken debauchery.

Now I feel insulted! Earth must declare war on the alien menace!

I believe I have already addressed the problems involved with travelling over interstellar distances rather completely, and pointed out as a result why expecting any intelligent life form (should another exist in our galaxy (which I feel is rather likely (even if we wouldn't recognise it (might I be overusing parens?)))) to have happened to reach us is completely absurd.

The farthest that we might have reached so far, travelling between the stars, is Proxima Centauri, assuming you're being incredibly generous about the velocities we could have reached with 50s tech. As such velocities are out of the question in an era when we couldn't reach the moon, and providing life support for such a long space journey is also beyond our ability at the time, no, we could not have travelled between stars. Unless you require us to have worked together collectively with this as a single goal for the last few hundred years, and made many of the discoveries of modern and near future science far ahead of schedule, we simply could not have done it.

We couldn't be their yet, true, but we probably could have launched a ship that would be their in 40 or 50 years, and that's with our level of tech.

Zecharias Sitchin is kinda right, in my opinion. I do think we've been visited by aliens from Nibiru. And I do think aliens from Nibiru will be responsible for the apocalypse on Dec. 21, 2012.

Zecharias Sitchin is kinda right, in my opinion. I do think we've been visited by aliens from Nibiru. And I do think aliens from Nibiru will be responsible for the apocalypse on Dec. 21, 2012.

Based on.... what exactly?

There's no good evidence there's even extraterrestrial life, much less that it's been here.

There's even less evidence for yet another doomsday cult.

This was inspired by the conspiracy theory thread.

Of course, a large portion of humanity believes in Alien visitors, and many in abductions and a government coverup. However, large portions of the scientific, political, and media professions remain unconvinced, to the point that stating belief in UFO's may not be a good career choice;).

So, the purpose of this thread is to state our various opinions on the different UFO, abduction, and related conspiracy theories, and discuss the evidence or lack their of.

And by the way, I will flame anyone using the term "UFO" as a synonym for "alien space craft". UFO means "unidentified flying object", nothing more.:)

The laws of science and the vastness of the universe should guarantee the existence of extra terrestrials. Most can only be composed of the energies of the universe and the elements, that applies here it also should apply out there. It is highly improbable that in a vast and expanding universe that earth is the only one with intelligent life.

Based on.... what exactly?

There's no good evidence there's even extraterrestrial life, much less that it's been here.

There's even less evidence for yet another doomsday cult.
It's not based on anything. It is simply my opinion.

It's not based on anything. It is simply my opinion.

Opinions can still be based on something... my opinion that there's probably no intelligent alien life anywhere near us, is based on the fact there's no good evidence to believe it.

See - opinion, based on evidence.

There is life on other planets. It's likely that there's intelligent life on other planets. It's extremely unlikely that they've visited our system.

Yeah, what he said.

Opinions can still be based on something... my opinion that there's probably no intelligent alien life anywhere near us, is based on the fact there's no good evidence to believe it.

See - opinion, based on evidence.
Ok, you got me there. To answer your original response to my post, it is based on what I have read in "The 12th Planet", and in various online sources, some of which probably aren't too legit. So, my opinion is based on circumstantial information.

Ok, you got me there. To answer your original response to my post, it is based on what I have read in "The 12th Planet", and in various online sources, some of which probably aren't too legit. So, my opinion is based on circumstantial information.

Oh wait... the book that suggests a planet between Mars and Jupiter, I think it was... and speculating that heiroglyphs in old Mesopotamian shrines are aliens?

It's cute - but it's not based on science. Unfortunately.

Well I got the wrong end of the stick....
You mean, the wrong end of the probe?

Opinions can still be based on something... my opinion that there's probably no intelligent alien life anywhere near us, is based on the fact there's no good evidence to believe it.

See - opinion, based on evidence.

I don't think that lack of evidence really counts as evidence.

Oh forget about UFOs. What everybody should beware of is weather balloons. If you see one, the Air Force will come pounding on your door and demand that you swear to silence like they did in 1947!
:gundge:

ooohh! i saw one before!!!

They get it all wrong. There is a government conspiracy - but it's a conspiracy to pretend that there might be some aliens and the government is very unsuccessfully trying to cover up their traces on Earth.

The key point is to distract people from real-life problems and real government's wrongdoings, and focus their attention on something insignificant. Another reason is to ensure everyone that the government is so incompetent at covert operations that it can't possibly successfully hide anything from us, so we can trust it.

this IS also a thing that is going on. i don't know if conspiracy is the lable i'd tar this policy with, but it certainly is one of the very many elements in keeping people coerced into emotional attatchment to makiavellianism, out of the unfounded and irrational fear that anything else would have to be worse.

but i don't think any of that is pertinent to the question of people from other worlds existing or visiting us, which are again, really entirely seperate questions from each other as well.

actually i believe there would be a lot more people from other worlds visiting earth on a lot friendlier terms, if there wasn't some kind of galactic interdiction against doing so. this do to our own immaturity and being at a point, with makes us fascinating to study, like the very beggining of adolescence, only collectively as a species.

and i don't trust, for the most part, representitives of worlds that might be deliberately ignoring that ban, for reasons, possibly less benign then scientific curiosity.

i mean its not like earth has anything anyone else would PHYSICALLY want, but there ARE rogue worlds, just as there are rogue nations on our own earth.

well of course all of that is speculation, or most of it, sort of, and of course a lot of the fear of the unknown is mostly a fear of our own collective conscience.

what i'm getting at though, is that its certainly possible, even probable, for more then one thing to be going on at the same time.

I don't think that lack of evidence really counts as evidence.

Rather depends.

My opinion is 'there's no reason to believe in aliens'. My 'evidence' is 'no credible evidence of aliens'.

It's sufficient for the purpose, see?

I don't think that lack of evidence really counts as evidence.

of course it can. the old screed "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is patently false.

"evidence" means only something that has a tendency to show a disputed fact as being any more, or less, likely to be true. If the claim is "aliens exist", the absence of anything to substantiate that claim has a tendency to make that claim appear less likely to be true. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but that's not the same thing at all.

Its swamp gas reflecting off venus!

Wait?! The aliens are supposed to be abducting us?! Well I got the wrong end of the stick.... *releases imprisoned aliens*

Londim's got the right attitude. I say we beat the Aliens in the Space race and invade/terrorize/study them.

I imagine there probably is alien life out there, but I doubt they've visited us, especially not to the extent a lot of these conspiracy nuts think, and I doubt that they bomb around nabbing yokels from the middle of no where.

Ahem...


Teenagers.