Show Proof of the Existence of ONE Alien Being

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Erno86

Don't you have a photo with the exit records or whatever thats called? don't we have any photo experts here?

That's "exif"...it is a footer to many image files like jpg, png, etc. that contains data about the image, the camera that took it, copyright/licensing data, and prolly other crap as well. Folks seem to think that it is "sacred data" somehow...perhaps protected by magic spell...anyway some seem to think it tell "truth" about the image. In reality it is a data footer, and subject to edit like any other "bit" in the file.

yeah I

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

- That = 0.00000001% of life forms that have ever existed on Earth are intelligent enough to think and eventually venture beyond it's own planet.
...We are a fluke and an extremely rare occurrence when you step back and think about it.

I believe your analysis is flawed. There would be a 63.21% chance of 1 or more intelligent species developing using your line of thinking. Also, if the planet were 10x as "fertile" as the Earth it would be a 99.999955% chance of 1 or more intelligent species developing.

In my opinion we can't really conclude much about the probability of intelligent life developing. However, if you apply your idea for analyzing the probability of an intelligent species developing then you need to use a binomial distribution. Boot up excel and plug in the following numbers (warning: excel has changed implementation across versions). Note*: This also assumes that the trials are independent. Evolution is a search algorithm which depends upon and benefits from previous results. So if anything the binomial distribution is a worst case scenario.

Please consider the following:

Bernoulli Trials (Wikipedia)

Excel 2013 Results

s = 1, number of successes
p = 1e-8, probability (ie 0.000001%)
t = 1e+8, number of species (ie. 0.1 Billion attempts at intelligent life)
BINOM.DIST.RANGE(t,p,s,t) = 63.21%

We will use 0.1 Billion instead of 10 Billion because excel will have problems calculating the combinatorial after 1e+09 trials.

Here is the percentage chance of 1 or more intelligent species developing based upon your thinking:

s = 1, 63.21%
s = 2, 26.42%
s = 3, 8.03%
s = 4, 1.09%
s = 5, 0.37%

So, if we analyze the odds based upon your suggestion we get a whopping 63.21% chance of at least 1 intelligent species. There would be a 0.37% chance of at least 5 or more intelligent species developing on Earth.

Now let's consider a planet that might be more fertile. We will multiply the number of trials by 10x.

s = 1, number of successes
p = 1e-8, probability (ie 0.000001%)
t = 1e+9, number of species (ie. 1 Billion attempts at intelligent life)
BINOM.DIST.RANGE(t,p,s,t) = 99.9955%

s = 1, 99.9955%
s = 2, 99.9501%
s = 3, 99.7231%
s = 4, 98.9664%
s = 5, 97.0747%

It doesn't matter if you change the numbers from 1K to 1 million or 10 billion. If you have the following relationship:

p = 1 / t

as you have presented then you are going to get very similar results for any numbers that you choose. After about t > 1e+2 you quickly converge to 63.21%. Also, the following relationship

p = 10 / t

Shows one of several flaws in your method of analysis. In other words, we really have no idea what the probability is. We could potentially extrapolate from large amounts of bio-mass correlated to perceived search efficiency of evolution. However, the end result would support the opposite of what you are trying to conclude.

I cant believe mods haven't axed this post yet, its been done 1000 times. If there was definitive proof, there would probably be no ATS . They exist, youll just have to take my word for it.

a reply to: compressedFusion
We're not speaking about the chances of high intelligence in two terms (binomial). For example, with a coin toss where you will definitively either have heads or tails. Calculating using that method in Excel could result in a 63.21% chance it will either be heads or tails. My example is binomial in the sense that it is yes or no question for high intelligence to evolve, but, it is spread out through 10,000,000,000 chances, not just two. So, I don't believe using your method is accurate in referencing the probability chances in the billions.

However, I may be wrong as to how you're approaching it. So, correct me if I am. I may be missing something. You can use the binomial probabilities calculator on vassarstats.net which can handle # values beyond a billion.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

My example is binomial in the sense that it is yes or no question for high intelligence to evolve, but, it is spread out through 10,000,000,000 chances, not just two.

The analogy for a coin toss would be as follows: Consider a "trick" coin that has a 0.00000001% chance of landing on heads. Toss the coin 10,000,000,000 times. What are the chances it will land on heads 1 or more times?

answer: 63.21%

Extending the analogy

Number of tosses = number of species that have developed (Note: Personally I wouldn't use this method. I would look at replication events of gametes from meiosis.
Heads = intelligent species developing
Tails = non-intelligent species developing

I hope that clears it up. I don't have time to elaborate. I will check this thread in about 12 hours.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AlienView

Any comments or opinions about my alien entity picture? J. Allen Hynek...did not think much of my alien picture's at all.

Seems like the OP is not going to answer my question.

What's a "fossil rock" and how do you know there's an Alien behind it?

It's a fossil laden rock from the Miocene Epoch 23.03 million to 5.3 million years old --- on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.

Now...if you sat on the same throne [another fossil boulder] that the otherworlder sat on at that time [summer of 1972] --- your head would be poking-up behind the fossil rock and your foot and part or your left leg would be straddling about 45 degrees on the fossil rock throne --- same as the otherworlder that had posed for my picture.

Sorry, but I'm with Dr. J. Allen Hynek on this one. All I see are rocks and a cliff face.

a reply to: compressedFusion

You have to apply the yes(intelligent) and no (non-intelligent) possibility independently to each one of the 10,000,000,000 life forms. Not to the entire group as a whole. That's because each case is different than the previous and in turn has a possibility of evolving to high intelligence. No two cases are exactly alike, so the possibility will not be the same throughout. The yes or no result will be the same, but the chances/possibilities of a yes or no for each are not. It's not a 50/50 two-part binomial coin toss exactly 'equal' chance across the board for the entire 10,000,000,000.

In an exacting perfect world your calculation works. Not in a random world like Earth though. That's evident today by the wide variety of levels of intelligence through all the species on Earth. Maybe I'm just not making my point clear enough.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AlienView

Any comments or opinions about my alien entity picture? J. Allen Hynek...did not think much of my alien picture's at all.

Seems like the OP is not going to answer my question.

What's a "fossil rock" and how do you know there's an Alien behind it?

It's a fossil laden rock from the Miocene Epoch 23.03 million to 5.3 million years old --- on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.

Now...if you sat on the same throne [another fossil boulder] that the otherworlder sat on at that time [summer of 1972] --- your head would be poking-up behind the fossil rock and your foot and part or your left leg would be straddling about 45 degrees on the fossil rock throne --- same as the otherworlder that had posed for my picture.

Sorry, but I'm with Dr. J. Allen Hynek on this one. All I see are rocks and a cliff face.

You might have to look harder at the lower right hand corner of the photograph. It looks like the entity is wearing some kind of helmet. Can you see the sunlight reflecting off the top of his helmet? Can you see the two large black glassy eyes? Can you see the long nose? --- With an approx. two inch long vertical breathing slit, coming up from the center bottom of his nose. Can you see the mouth?....Which has a smile of a Zen Buddha that has just achieved satori. Can you see his grayish left hand leg and foot?

Besides the entity...the picture is loaded with geoglyph carvings. Look at the center top of the photograph --- just underneath the sun reflection, is a carving of a saucer. Above the saucer carving --- under the sun's reflection ---somebody finger painted [with a lighter type of soil on a darker type of soil] the word "stars."

You look at the center of the photograph, and you'll see a large pictoglyph carving [lighter type of soil on a darker type of soil] of a large humanoid carving. Now...behind the large right monolith/megalith --- 1/3 up from the bottom of the cliff --- is a geoglyph carving of the alien entity, that is perported to be in my first photograph --- it even has a one inch slit up from the center bottom of his nose. That is my second video/photograph on my YouTube website...only this picture was taken around 4 years later after the first photograph. It might just be a self-portrait geoglyph carving made by the actual alien entity himself.

I would greatly appreciate, if you could post this picture that I took in 1976 --- on this thread --- since I'm a bit computer illiterate.

Thanks,

Erno

originally posted by: Erno86

You might have to look harder at the lower right hand corner of the photograph. It looks like the entity is wearing some kind of helmet. Can you see the sunlight reflecting off the top of his helmet? Can you see the two large black glassy eyes? Can you see the long nose? --- With an approx. two inch long vertical breathing slit, coming up from the center bottom of his nose. Can you see the mouth?....Which has a smile of a Zen Buddha that has just achieved satori. Can you see his grayish left hand leg and foot?

Besides the entity...the picture is loaded with geoglyph carvings. Look at the center top of the photograph --- just underneath the sun reflection, is a carving of a saucer. Above the saucer carving --- under the sun's reflection ---somebody finger painted [with a lighter type of soil on a darker type of soil] the word "stars."

You look at the center of the photograph, and you'll see a large pictoglyph carving [lighter type of soil on a darker type of soil] a large humanoid carving. Now...behind the large right monolith/megalith --- 1/3 up from the bottom of the cliff --- is a geoglyph carving of the alien entity, that is perported to be in my first photograph --- it even has a one inch slit up from the center bottom of his nose. That is my second video/photograph on my YouTube website...only this picture was taken around 4 years later after the first photograph. It might just be a self-portrait geoglyph carving made by the actual alien entity himself.

I would greatly appreciate, if you could post this picture that I took in 1976 --- on this thread --- since I'm a bit computer illiterate.

Thanks,

Erno

Yeah... uh, no. Sorry. More than a little pareidolia at play here, I'm guessing.

a reply to: draknoir2

Moving on...but thanks for caring too at least look and post my perported alien entity picture.

But may I add...you've still haven't seen my second picture that I took that day in 1972 --- which I contend is a laser holographic image of a dinosauroid humanoid --- which I haven't posted on YouTube yet.

It's still is a mystery...as too what happened to my perported alien entity pictures that I sent to Hynek. After he passed away --- Hynek''s replacement at CUFOS, said he read my letter that I sent to Hynek [ along with my alien entity pictures], and would I please send him my alien entity pictures to him --- so he could take a look at them. Whatever happened to my alien pictures that I sent to Hynek ---- Hynek took to his grave.

My perported alien entity resembles a reported [Popular Mechanics magazine] a 10 foot tall helmeted humanoid alien entity, that chased a airman across the desert, at White Sands, New Mexico, in the 60's or early 70's

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
[You have to apply the yes(intelligent) and no (non-intelligent) possibility independently to each one of the 10,000,000,000 life forms.

Wikipedia
In probability theory and statistics, the binomial distribution is the discrete probability distribution of the number of successes in a sequence of n independent yes/no experiments

Each case must be independent to properly apply the binomial distribution. This doesn't really further your argument. You make a valid point about the probability (quoted below), but that only reinforces my original criticism.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
No two cases are exactly alike, so the possibility will not be the same throughout.

I used the implied probability from your original post of 0.00000001% for a single species. If you were trying to imply the probability is something else then I believe your conclusion is incomplete.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
The yes or no result will be the same, but the chances/possibilities of a yes or no for each are not.
...
That's because each case is different than the previous and in turn has a possibility of evolving to high intelligence

What is the probability in each case? If it is different then it can be represented as a weighted function. Without an answer to this basic question then there can be no conclusion. This is precisely why I suggested we can't determine the likelihood of life developing in the manner you are suggesting in your original post.

I find it odd that you are taking this line of reasoning in this discussion because it will only lead to the inevitable conclusion that we can't assess the percentage chance of life developing on another planet over the course of 4 billion years.

In an exacting perfect world your calculation works. Not in a random world like Earth though.

I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of this statement. The calculation either works or it doesn't. A bernoulli trial is by it's nature a random experiment.

Maybe I'm just not making my point clear enough.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm confident in my analysis and I have the background to justify that confidence.

a reply to: compressedFusion
There are more variables involved within each life form and variables in the branches of those life forms than a simple exacting 50/50- heads or tails- result. The possibility for success of each life form evolving high intelligence is not the same. The possibility of the level of intelligence of each life form isn't the same. As one example, a life form with medium intelligence, will have a greater chance of evolving, or branching off to evolve high intelligence, than a life form with low, very low, or simple intelligence. The intelligence scale varies greatly and again isn't an equal case by case 50/50- slam dunk- yes or no- head or tails- result. Therefore, you can't apply a strict binomial distribution method to this example.

If you do apply this method, you get the ridiculous result, as you stated, of a 63.21% chance that a life form will evolve to be highly intelligent. As evident by the history of evolution on the Earth, this of course did not occur.

I understand what you're attempting to show, but, you also have to understand I'm not speaking in mathmetical absolutes. As I stated in the first paragraph:
"We can use Earth as an example of what may occur on other planets. It isn't the be-all and end-all answer of what will happen. Just a logical assumption from the only source we have.".
Meaning, the parameters (numbers, percentages, etc) are not set in stone and I'm speaking in terms of possibilities rather than probabilities. You have interchanged both words throughout your responses and I've never committed to a probability. Nor have I used the word "conclusion" with this assumption. That would be foolish to speak with absolute conviction of what we can't possibly know or understand.

originally posted by: draknoir2

Sorry, but I'm with Dr. J. Allen Hynek on this one. All I see are rocks and a cliff face.

I can't help but think of Ray Harryhausen every time I see that:

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: compressedFusion
There are more variables involved within each life form and variables in the branches of those life forms than a simple exacting 50/50- heads or tails- result.

I was wondering how long it would take for y'all t come to this conclusion...I've already been down this road and found that the kinds of "simple" probability you were trying can never work.

Moving along...by using something Bayesian Inference you can actually find the "probability" ou are looking for. Bayesian Inference can even tell you "what" variables to use...

Course, then it will deliver you the "shocker"...probability for life is virtually 1 (one), and the probability for "intelligence" is also nearly 1 (one). The issue becomes one of "age"...Terrestrials are actually rather well placed in the "Intelligence evolution" game (scale). And, te probability of actually "bumping" into an "off-worlder" is on the order of 7.14e-10.Very small, but infinitely larger that your estimates will ever be using the wrong "kind" of math.

The "intelligence" y'all are looking for is something that develops where ever there is "life"; some species are quite simply...more successful than others.

a reply to: tanka418

here is the link you asked for earlier...

arxiv.org...

www.technologyreview.com...

July 25, 2011

Probability of ET Life Arbitrarily Small, Say Astrobiologists

Astronomers have always thought that because life emerged quickly on Earth, it must be likely to occur elsewhere. That thinking now turns out to be wrong.

The Drake equation is one of those rare mathematical beasts that has leaked into the public consciousness. It estimates the number of extraterrestrial civilisations that we might be able to detect today or in the near future.

The equation was devised by Frank Drake at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1960. He attempted to quantify the number by asking what fraction of stars have planets, what fraction of these might be habitable, then the fraction of these on which life actually evolves and the fraction of these on which life becomes intelligent and so on.

Many of these numbers are little more than wild guesses. For example, the number of ET civilisations we can detect now is hugely sensitive to the fraction that destroy themselves with their own technology, through nuclear war for example. Obviously we have no way of knowing this figure.

Nevertheless, many scientists have attempted to come up with a figure with estimates ranging from a handful of ET civilisations to tens of thousands of them.

Of the many uncertainties in the Drake equation, one term is traditionally thought of as relatively reliable. That is the probability of life emerging on a planet in a habitable zone. On Earth, life arose about 3.8 billion years ago, just a few million years after the planet had cooled sufficiently to allow it.

Astrobiologists naturally argue that because life arose so quickly here, it must be pretty likely to emerge in other places where conditions allow.

Today, David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo say this thinking is wrong. They’ve used an entirely different kind of thinking, called Bayesian reasoning, to show that the emergence of life on Earth is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare in the universe.

At first sight, that seems rather counterintuitive. But if Bayesian reasoning tells us anything, it’s that we can easily fool ourselves into thinking things are far more likely than they really are.

Spiegel and Turner point out that our thinking about the origin of life is heavily biased by the fact that we’re here to observe it. They point out that it’s taken about 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth.

So the only way that enough time could have elapsed for us to have evolved is if life emerged very quickly. And that’s a bias that is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.

“In other words, if evolution requires 3.5 Gyr for life to evolve from the simplest forms to sentient, questioning beings, then we had to find ourselves on a planet on which life arose relatively early, regardless of the value of [the probability of life developing in a unit time],” say Spiegel and Turner. #

When you strip out that bias, it turns out that the actual probability of life emerging is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare. In other words, the fact that life emerged at least once on Earth is entirely consistent with it only having happened here.

So we could be alone, after all.

That’s a sobering argument. It’s easy to be fooled by the evidence of our own existence. What Speigel and Turner have shown is the true mathematical value of this evidence.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we are alone; only that the evidence can’t tell us otherwise.

And if the evidence changes then so to will the probabilities that we can infer from it.

There are two ways of finding new evidence. The first is to look for signs of life on other planets, perhaps using biogenic markers in their atmospheres. The capability to do begin this work on planets around other stars should be with us in the next few years.

The second is closer to home. If we find evidence that life emerged independently more than once on Earth, then this would be a good reason to change the figures.

Either way, this debate is set to become a major issue in science in the next few years. That’s something to look forward to.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Thank you...and I was "bright" enough this time to bookmark it...

I tend to speculate --- based on our own Earth history ---- that typical goldilocks zoned planets in our universe, might likely support a 50/50 ratio of habitable planets, that either have evolved [given the time/extinctions] highly intelligent homo sapien types or highly intelligent --- warm blooded --- dinosauroid humanoid types; with some of these exo-planetary civilizations possibly co-existing peaceably between each of these species.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418

here is the link you asked for earlier...

arxiv.org...

Thanks for suggesting and posting that. This was something I had never read nor was I familar with.

originally posted by: tanka418
I was wondering how long it would take for y'all t come to this conclusion...I've already been down this road and found that the kinds of "simple" probability you were trying can never work.

For clarity, my stance is that we can't reach a reasonable conclusion based upon the existing data. I provided the previous analysis to point out, in my opinion, the fallacy in Ecto’s original logic (no offense intended). More importantly I wanted to show that going down that path doesn’t support the original statement of intelligent life is rare.

I believe we would have to run simulations on abiogenesis, meiosis, and the efficiency of the search algorithm known as evolution to come to a reasonable solution without additional data from other planets. It would likely take a quantum computer to handle the computational complexity.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

here is the link you asked for earlier...

arxiv.org...

Summary: We can't assume a high or low probability because it is highly dependent on our selection of a prior. The quoted article really misses the point of the paper.

Thank you for linking the paper "Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life’s early emergence on Earth". I enjoyed reading it. It stresses the value of experimental data but seeks to provide a quantitative analysis of the limited data we do have. Ultimately, they show that we get a wide range of probabilities depending upon the prior we select. This is consistent with my assertion that we simply can’t make statements about the probability of life without more data.

The probability of abiogenesis, λ, is the posterior probability in their inference. The paper shows the wide range of λ based upon different plausible priors. They show that there are plausible priors which result in a low λ and are consistent with known data (In addition to the plausible priors that result in a high gamma and are consisten as well).

It appears to be a reaction to the belief that abiogenesis is presumed to be a high λ due to the fact that it happened on Earth and happened early on. Their goal is to show that it could be high or low. However, they are specifically attacking the notion of assuming a high λ. The article you quoted really misinterprets this paper. In fact, it goes against the paper’s very spirit. They are trying to point out the dominant factor of the prior. Three plausible priors are graphed that show a very wide probability range λ (see Fig 1):

λmin = 10^−3 Gyr−1 and λmax = 10^+3 Gyr−1

Here is a quote from the paper illustrating their goal.

Furthermore, an argument of this general sort has been widely used in a qualitative and even intuitive way to conclude that λ is unlikely to be extremely small because it would then be surprising for abiogenesis to have occurred as quickly as it did on Earth [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Indeed, the early emergence of life on Earth is often taken as significant supporting evidence for “optimism” about the existence of extra-terrestrial life (i.e., for the view that it is fairly common) [19, 20, 9]. The major motivation of this paper is to determine the quantitative validity of this inference.

In other words, we can't just assume λ is high and nor can we assume it is low because we can find plausible priors for both which is consistent with the existing data (again please see Fig 1). This isn't really a big surprise considering how little data we have. They stress the need to make observations through exoplanet research.

In the meantime, I believe we probably only have simulation at our disposal. Here is a quote from their paper about an elaborate process for selecting priors which they imply is intractable:

One approach to choosing appropriate priors for tmin, tmax, and δtevolve, would be to try to distill geophysical and pale- obiological evidence along with theories for the evolution of intelligence and the origin of life into quantitative distribution functions that accurately represent prior information and beliefs about these parameters.

I joined the forums to post this pic.I have many like it.What do you think he is?