Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: game over man
I'm also willing to make another leap that finding Earth might be an extremely rare find and all life on Earth could be a science experiment by ET.

Did you know that Earth, or more properly Sol is one of the most ideal stars for finding advanced sentient life...belongs to a group that only 22% of stars belong to.

ET knows that, and would seek out stars just like Sol in his explorations...

There are more than enough suitable stars with planets close to Earth (within 50 - 70ly) to account for every "mythical" species visiting today, and across the few thousand years of Human history...many of these planets older than Earth...

I'd think that Earth would be one of the first places ET might look.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
I'm also willing to make another leap that finding Earth might be an extremely rare find and all life on Earth could be a science experiment by ET.

Did you know that Earth, or more properly Sol is one of the most ideal stars for finding advanced sentient life...belongs to a group that only 22% of stars belong to.

This "special" group that Sol belongs to - you realize that as much as 85% of all the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are red dwarf stars?

So Sol, not being a red dwarf, is actually in a group comprising less than 20% of the stars in our galaxy..

However, that group is made up stars that are visible - red dwarfs are too dim to be seen from a distance.

So, every star you look at also belongs in this "exclusive" group.

Not really as exclusive as one could be led to believe, is it?

Harte

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Eye witness accounts are used a evidence all the time. Some such accounts have been documented. However, one is free to determine the weight of such evidence on a case-by-case basis. The OP is not suggesting that there is undeniable proof of their existence, but merely that there is enough for one to consider the possibility, and shouldn't dismiss it outright.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
I'm also willing to make another leap that finding Earth might be an extremely rare find and all life on Earth could be a science experiment by ET.

Did you know that Earth, or more properly Sol is one of the most ideal stars for finding advanced sentient life...belongs to a group that only 22% of stars belong to.

This "special" group that Sol belongs to - you realize that as much as 85% of all the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are red dwarf stars?

So Sol, not being a red dwarf, is actually in a group comprising less than 20% of the stars in our galaxy..

However, that group is made up stars that are visible - red dwarfs are too dim to be seen from a distance.

So, every star you look at also belongs in this "exclusive" group.

Not really as exclusive as one could be led to believe, is it?

Harte

Where did you get idea that G class stars are in some way "special" or "exclusive?

"M" class stars only make up 76.4% of the galaxy.

And, Sol's group is, as I already said, 22% (actually 23.6%). This group consists of "K", "G", and "F" class stars...stars with enough energy to evolve sufficiently complex life, and with a lifetime long enough to allow that life to evolve...

Source: statistical analysis of Hipparcos dataset...you can find a copy of this dataset on my website...run the analysis yourself.

originally posted by: tanka418

Actually, it does... the more planets the more chances there are...it's kind of like buying many lottery tickets...better chance of winning something.

SOooo, you buy one lottery ticket or million your odds are still about the same with the overall chance. We can debate all this but in the end you still need a stable planet within a narrow range of conditions to ensure evolution has the time to do its thing and produce advance life once simple life has started.

If you want to suggest that most planets fit this then I guess that is the way you think....

originally posted by: tanka418

How do I go all the way to suggest that? By taking into account the age of the star/planet. The Zetas Reticuli are a kind of strange pair. They kind of have two ages; When considering a star's age the motion is used, this is usually confirmed by an analysis of the star's color. In the case of the Zetas Reticuli, one method indicates 6+ billion years, the other method indicates only 3+ billion. The average of these is about the age of Earth...thus they are old enough to support an advanced sentient space-faring civilization...perhaps a bit ore advanced than Earth.

I do not think time is our friend here. Even when you look at the Universe and the point at which life may have started is about 9 billion years ago. 4 billion years ago life started on earth and in all that time we get one species that may live beyond its starting planet. We also have 3 planets in the Goldilocks zone but 2 of them failed and that does not spell well for life either. So almost 1/2 the age of the universe at the point it had started to make planets we have one species, us.

Even if a planet is as perfect as earth it still doesn't suggest that advance intelligence will be part of the evolutionary track there, as I said before, evolution doesn't really need push intelligence, it needs just enough for predators to function well.

One joke I have made in the past is what if the smartest species in the universe is a sponge at the bottom of some ocean, so not only do you need intelligence but the physical means to build too.

Even after all this the little aliens still need to find us in all this vastness.

originally posted by: EnPassant
There have been thousands of books written about this spiritual realm and it is apparently inhabited by all kinds of beings; elementals, divas, saints, angels, pixies, familiars, demons etc.

The question now becomes Are some of these beings alien? Are they from another spiritual world? Are there native spirits and alien spirits? Given the descriptions of some of these beings it seems that some are alien. They seem different to the usual descriptions of spirits who seem native to this world.

I understand where you are coming from, I guess my point is more towards the physical Newtonian universe alien. I see way too many road blocks in the physical world for us to meet up with another intelligent species any time soon. I think that most would even die out before that happen-chance was successful.

Maybe their machines can survive the ages, so maybe these are advance machines, but species come and go, and we will come and go too.

As to interdenominational or spirit world I think that we have a long way to go to suggest that even exists. It seems if they did then even the advance aliens do not control it very well, so I do not think we will either. The other question is if we are one species of trillions why do they even care...

The mistake we make in judging whether we can be visited is by projecting our technological understandings on the other possible inhabitants of the universe.

Likely there are at least civilizations as far ahead of us as modern man is to the Cromagnon man. Early man's conjecture would be for people to visit him they'd have to travel by foot. We have no idea how lifeforms millions of years ahead of us could travel to us and how long it would take. Just as Cromagnon man would have no frame of reference for seeing an iPhone or to understand how it works. The same goes for us.

Likely, the universe is teaming with life. Whether it is near or far…I don't think that it would matter to a significantly mature life form.

The question is if they are coming here why don't reveal themselves? Look around at the hate and war that this planet is living in and I think you'll have your answer. Also, they may have no need to travel to our surface anyway. maybe they can just send a microscopic camera or probe and wear VR headsets that allows them to virtually walk among us without actually coming here. Who knows?

I hope the UFO researchers and skeptics will work together at some point. Because, based on my own sighting, it's possible we are not alone.

a reply to: Putinslostshirt

Could be Betty and Barney Hill. They were from America, returning from a trip to Canada. But, it was from 1961.

www.ufocasebook.com...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Even after all this the little aliens still need to find us in all this vastness.

Yet Earth resides in the habitable zone of an ideal star, that is just the right age...

Where would YOU look for life such as is found on Earth?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Xtrozero

Even after all this the little aliens still need to find us in all this vastness.

Yet Earth resides in the habitable zone of an ideal star, that is just the right age...

Where would YOU look for life such as is found on Earth?

Excellent post!!

Even in these early stages of exploring exoplanets, Scientist are putting together biosignatures to search for the best candidates for life. It makes no sense to think an advanced civilization would have to "find us in all the vastness."

Planets like ours might the easy ones to find.

Consider this. Even on our own earth bacteria thrives in volcanic vents at temperatures most early scientists thought unlikely to allow any organisms to survive. Other lifeforms out there would not necessarily have the same requirements as we do. Some could allow for colder temperatures or hotter. Likely many of them wouldn't even look like us. I remember coming upon the art book "Barlowes Guide to Extraterrestrials." It showed some concepts of what aliens could look like based upon scientific concepts of life forms evolving to their environments.

a reply to: tanka418

Yes, well you see, that's the thing...I do know

You know that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs?

Pull the other one, mate.

You will not accept any data so ever, and will continue to deny reality, and embrace willful ignorance at every possible turn...

Where is the data?

I don't deny that strange things are sometimes seen in the sky. I am even willing to believe that these things have sometimes seemed to interact with the people who see them -- taking evasive action against pursuing aircraft, etc. -- though reports of these interactive apparitions are usually confused and impossible to verify.

As for the hypothesis that they are visitors from another world, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. Only your hopes.

And the size and emptiness of the Universe make this a highly implausible hypothesis.

If I told you there are 2015 confirmed exoplanets, what would you think; that I'm wrong? Would you go a "see"? Or perhaps simply reject the whole out of hand (which is what you usually do)?

I haven't checked lately, but the last time I read about it the number was up to 840 or something like that, so I would probably believe you.

If you had said the number was ten thousand, I would be sceptical. I would not believe you without independent confirmation, and I might well ask for proof.

But if you told me that the number was one million, I would regard your claim as nonsense. However, if you were to prove it to me, I would swallow hard, apologize for my incredulity, and add the datum to my tiny stock of reliable information about the world. I would bring it up at dinner-parties, as an unusual fact worth mentioning.

Since the claim that extraterrestrials are regularly visiting Earth is comparable in probability to the claim that a million exoplanets have already been detected, I feel entirely justified in my disbelief. If you can prove otherwise, however, my disbelief will vanish in an instant.

You know now what you must do.

a reply to: neoholographic

What is the difference between conformal field theories and quantum field theories that make it symmetric and mathematically give rise to a thermodynamic critical point and how is this derived?

What a lot of gibberish. Make what symmetric?

originally posted by: neoholographic

Even in these early stages of exploring exoplanets, Scientist are putting together biosignatures to search for the best candidates for life. It makes no sense to think an advanced civilization would have to "find us in all the vastness."

Damn never knew it was so easy....

They need to go to the planets too. Once again you are under the assumption they can travel at will to our little planet, because they want to? Then when they get here he need to stay hidden, and oh, by your calculations there are 100s 1000s of civilizations that know we are here, and once again they all need to stay a secret.

I would love for them to come, well maybe not, they might eat us, but still want to know and the part that doesn't make sense, like you keep saying, is that though you suggest space fairing aliens are common we still have nothing but fleeting glimpse of speculations.

That is the white elephant in the room, and until we can over come that it is best guess...

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Eye witness accounts are used a evidence all the time. Some such accounts have been documented. However, one is free to determine the weight of such evidence on a case-by-case basis. The OP is not suggesting that there is undeniable proof of their existence, but merely that there is enough for one to consider the possibility, and shouldn't dismiss it outright.

I absolutely agree. However, I also believe that one should refrain from jumping to the most far-flung, improbable conclusion (ie. extraterrestrials) without absolute proof of such. That is where I disagree with many of the posters here.

a reply to: neoholographic

2 words. "Mexico City". That to me is the best evidence of cloaking, if not ET tech. If you don't know what I am talking about, research Mexico City UFO, millions witnessed it, and when they were invisible, birds were found dead under them because they flew into them. Proof they were really there. Origin? Unknown...

Being a skeptic is the safety zone for many. An open mind however, gives permission to study all things, and it certainly does not mean you have to believe anything.

Actually, I have come to hate the term U.F.O., as the context that it is often used in, is usually at odds with it's definition. I like "Anomalous Arial Event". The term does not imply that we need to identify anything.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
I'm also willing to make another leap that finding Earth might be an extremely rare find and all life on Earth could be a science experiment by ET.

Did you know that Earth, or more properly Sol is one of the most ideal stars for finding advanced sentient life...belongs to a group that only 22% of stars belong to.

This "special" group that Sol belongs to - you realize that as much as 85% of all the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are red dwarf stars?

So Sol, not being a red dwarf, is actually in a group comprising less than 20% of the stars in our galaxy..

However, that group is made up stars that are visible - red dwarfs are too dim to be seen from a distance.

So, every star you look at also belongs in this "exclusive" group.

Not really as exclusive as one could be led to believe, is it?

Harte

Where did you get idea that G class stars are in some way "special" or "exclusive?

From you:

Did you know that Earth, or more properly Sol is one of the most ideal stars for finding advanced sentient life...belongs to a group that only 22% of stars belong to.

originally posted by: tanka418"M" class stars only make up 76.4% of the galaxy.

And, Sol's group is, as I already said, 22% (actually 23.6%). This group consists of "K", "G", and "F" class stars...stars with enough energy to evolve sufficiently complex life, and with a lifetime long enough to allow that life to evolve...

Source: statistical analysis of Hipparcos dataset...you can find a copy of this dataset on my website...run the analysis yourself.

However the proportion of single star systems increases for smaller stars, so that only 25% of red dwarfs are known to have stellar companions. As 85% of all stars are red dwarfs, most stars in the Milky Way are likely single from birth.

Wiki
There is every reason to believe that Red Dwarf systems are as capable of evolving complex life as any other type - more so than some types:

For a long time, scientists considered red dwarfs to be unfit for habitability. Their limited light and heat meant that the habitable zone — the region where liquid water could form, and thus life would be considered most likely to evolve — of planets around them would be very close to the star, putting them in range of radiation from the tiny stars. Other planets may find themselves tidally locked to the star, with one side constantly facing the sun. [VIDEO: Earth-Like Planets Orbit Nearby Red Dwarf Stars Say Scientists]

But new models have shown that some planets could develop in ways that would potentially allow life to evolve. Because red dwarfs make up more than three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy, this significantly increased the possibilities for the evolution of life in the universe. When its discovery was announced around a red dwarf in 2010, Gliese 581g was called the "first potentially habitable" alien planet.

Source

It seems that a truly "advanced" spacefaring culture searching for us will have quite a few stars to look at after all.

Harte