Why are no aliens artifacts found here on Earth?

a reply to: Blue Shift

There's also a difference between believing in aliens and believing in magical invisible unicorns.

a reply to: randyvs

Oh, I'll agree with you. As someone who has seen more than my fair share of strange things, it does sometimes make me wonder why I'm so skeptical on so much of this stuff.

I've seen/experienced a ghost, a rather angry one, at that. I think I've posted that story somewhere on ATS...?

I've seen Sasquatch, as you take great delight in reminding me of in these threads . Just kidding. Feel free to continue to do so.

I've seen UFO's/USO's on numerous occasions over the years.

But I am, very much, a seeing is believing sort of skeptic. I've come to trust my eyes and ears over the years when it comes to these sorts of things.

It wouldn't take much to turn me from skeptic to confirmed, even rabid, believer. That I'll freely admit.

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: Bedlam
You have to ask yourself, why would you come billions of miles to smash a few corn stalks? I'd hope you were a bit more direct.

Why do people troll? Because they can. Come on be at least a little creative.

Who's trolling? The question was, why are no alien artifacts found, and I maintain the answer to be the most likely is, that no aliens have come here. Problem solved. I know it's not the one you'd like to be true. But it is the most likely. Certainly you can't cite "because crop circles prove their existence". Well, not and me not question it in a reasonable discussion.

There's reasons to do most anything, pretending there isn't is dishonest. If there are aliens, there's no way to know how hard getting here would be. Besides, we go to bizarre places to study wildlife etc, why shouldn't they?

Yet, it's got to be quite a ways. I'm not sure it's reasonable to simply handwave the distance as being meaningless, unless you're going the magic route and attributing godlike behavior to them, if they exist. It seems unreasonable, and if assumed, leads to the sort of arguments that amount to 'goddidit' for answers.

Also invisible unicorn and alien species are not comparable. We have no proof of magic, we have proof of science and we have proof of the possibility of sentient beings.

We have proof of ourselves. That's it. We have no proof of intelligent alien species visiting the earth. That's the topic in question, innit?

Your unicorn requires accepting the belief in magic, believing in aliens does not, it requires believing in things we already know can exist.

Believing that life exists does not. Believing that it's found us, is the sort of life that would care, builds artifacts, can travel faster than light, has come here and left no trace is getting close to unicorns. Which is what I'm saying.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Blue Shift

There's also a difference between believing in aliens and believing in magical invisible unicorns.

Until you start adding on all the other bits, which makes it less and less likely, until your aliens closely approximate to unicorns.

a reply to: Bedlam

Trolling was being used as an example of stupid things sentient beings do for stupid reasons. No one was being accused of trolling, 'cept maybe the aliens.

We have theories now on how crossing such distances might be accomplished. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility that in time we might find ways to make some of these concepts feasible. Is unreasonable to assume because we can't do something now, we won't be able to do so someday. I'm not so arrogant to assume our knowledge of science is so complete we can reasonably consider it absolute. Assuming it is some impossible accomplishment is to me more arrogant a belief than assuming it might eventually be. After all humanity has a past history of horribly getting limitations things wrong.

Believing life does not exist is pretty much the least likely possibility we agree there.

If such life found us, which with the tech we are developing along such lines already, is not really that hard with just a slight technological advancement is no where near as magical or unlikely as you pretend it is in my opinion. Certainly not enough to increase unlikeliness in any significant way. In no way moving us towards magical unicorn.

I find it less likely, and would like to hear some arguments to make not caring reasonable at all for any species scientific enough to develop space travel to not be curious. I can think of a billion reasons to poke around, and very few reasons to shrug. That could just be my opinion though. I'm open to hearing some good reasons why they wouldn't care. I can think of some, but they're all pretty lame.

Traveling faster than light, we both disagree on this, but I will point out that there is potentially billions of planets with life on it, only one needs to find a way to make this a possibility. Also faster than light travel is not necessary by many theories. There's ways in theory to get around it.

None of these things, even added together seems close to magical invisible unicorns, as most of them when put together seem to be the most likely outcome, each step making the next more likely, as they all seem to naturally promote the next step.

What I find least likely is that if any species out there, just one has developed the tech to do so and has found us they wouldn't poke around, with probes at the most minimum.

By the way I'm not a believer but I'm not a disbeliever. I think staunch disbelief in UFO's is silly. With the way our science advances, and the way theoretical sciences create potential for more and more amazing things each year. Taking a "no they're not here" stance seems silly to me. A they might be, but I'm not 100% convinced they are is.

I'm completely willing to disbelieve in you having a magical pet unicorn. The unicorn requires believing in magic, there's no science theoretical or otherwise to support it, and there's nothing special about you to make me think some mystic unicorn is your bitch.

But not so much that a species more advanced than us might have found us using technology unnecessary of being much more advanced than our own, and being scientific likely has a natural curious or experimental nature so would likely desire to check us out if finding us, and get here using sciences we already are considering theoretically but actually realized to get here or send probes here.

Nothing about the alien requires magic or make believe, it simply requires consideration of possibilities involving things we know to exist, methodologies we understand in the real world, and scientific possibilities we are already exploring.

Pretending magic unicorns and alien visitation is comparable is absolutely ridiculous, one is reasonable, there's actual rationale and science that supports it being plausible. The unicorn has nothing what so ever to support it. The closest you could get is calling it your tulpa and going from there, but that's a far steeper road to travel than alien visitors.

a reply to: seagull

I've seen Sasquatch, as you take great delight in reminding me of in these threads .

Hey I was being discreet!

But ha ha! that's pretty cool!

a reply to: randyvs



I agree, it is kinda odd, but it is what it is. I'm skeptical of the numbers, I think, more than I am of the actual thing.

Obviously, I believe Bigfoot exists. But not all the sightings can possibly be real, if they were, there'd be no questions.

Same with alien visitation. If all of 'em were real, there'd be no question here, either.

I would think that most would share that point of view.

a reply to: Bedlam

what is your opinion about this old ufo case:
altereddimensions.net...

There is even a very nice thread on ats about this event with a lot of info! For me this is one of the major ufo experiences which have happened and are real. Because kids are not so good liers that adults would not notice that. So in my opinion something happened but what was the real nature of the event, we will probably never know (metaphysical or physical). But when it comes to the realness this is as good as you can get in my opinion.

This is my one real case which I talked about in first post. How does anyone dismiss it with logic? I really want to hear your thoughts about this or anyone else who is a sceptic.

well it is not artifact evidence but there were a lot of witnesses, they were kids and a lot of them saw the same thing. This happened and even today after all those years they have still memories of it and are still convinced that what they saw was something alien, if you look the interview which was made in recent years with adults, but who have been there as a kid in school.

a reply to: UniFinity

It wouldn't matter if the government itself confessed and disclosed having interactions with aliens if they refused to provide undeniable proof by putting an alien on stage, introducing them, then gutting them on stage so we can see their intestines fall out and we watch them die. In fact they'd find some way to discount that alien being real too. Obviously a deformed human. Just a freak.

No amount of eyewitness testimony will ever matter, being from kids won't change that. I'm not sure what it would take to get people to move from, "they aren't here" to "it's possible."

a reply to: Puppylove

yes, it is true what you say, but that is just sad, isn't it?
People are so uncomfortable with the unknowns that they would rather deny it. Eyewitness testimony is valid in court and I don't see a problem with it being valid in UFOlogy. But people will always find trouble picturing something outside their own comfort zone.

I am not saying that every witness is truthful but, certainly every witness is not a lier. Especially when they are kids...so for me this ufo case is good enough of an evidence that there are other entities here already.

Real question for me is how long ago did this start and how much are they influencing us and in what way (if they are metaphysical beings that should be considered due to other limits and needs that such beings would have)

a reply to: UniFinity

I just want to see less "No" and more "It's plausible", with people willing to consider possibilities, rather than obsess with stopping the conversation at, "they're not here."

a reply to: Puppylove

agreed, this would or will be a first small step for a person but big leap for humankind : )

The first and likely least likes anawer is that there aren't any aliens. Aliens are likely an imaginative creation of the human mind...

A second possibility is proposed by the rare earth hypothesis. The circumstances in which life arose on earth were so precise and numerous that a virtual "perfect storm" would be required to being life about elsewhere.

A third possibility is that life is prohibited from the kind of technology it would take to traverse the vastness of space by the fundamental physics of the universe. Also known as the great filter theory.

Fourth possibility - aliens (which would likely include artifacts)are not visible to the human eye under normal conditions. They may be extra dimensional or supernatural in makeup...

Fifth possibility - there is no desire to visit earth. Despite our hubris...earth may not be the universal vacation destination we like to think it is.....

Sixth possibility described by the planetarium hypothesis - aliens have not coded themselves into the program yet.

I could go on..but it's late. My money is on option numero uno.

A2D

Who says they are not?

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Bedlam

what is your opinion about this old ufo case:

Because kids are not so good liers that adults would not notice that...
So in my opinion something happened but what was the real nature of the event, we will probably never know ...

Ok. Was there any hard evidence at all? Or just a group of kids as eye witnesses?

I'd be interested in what the kids had seen in terms of entertainment in the month prior, as well.

As far as kids being able to lie, it's not so much them getting together and deciding to make up something. Kids can take something and spin it into a group fantasy in a blink. If you've ever been around a group of them that start telling each other ghost stories, you'll find they 'see something' soon after, and the descriptions will be eerily similar, especially if you don't separate them to get the stories. Put them together in a wad and get the story ala John Mack, have a nice group drawing of what you saw, and there's no surprise it comes out similar.

I also note in the website that every 'professional' that investigated it was a UFO true believer. Were there no others, or did they just not bother mentioning the ones that got a different read on it, I wonder?

originally posted by: Puppylove

No amount of eyewitness testimony will ever matter, being from kids won't change that. I'm not sure what it would take to get people to move from, "they aren't here" to "it's possible."

Something more credible than John Mack.

Millions and Billions of lifeless planets and stars surround us. No alien artifacts on Earth. But there must be aliens, right?

originally posted by: Puppylove
There's also a difference between believing in aliens and believing in magical invisible unicorns.

Just goes to show you that belief doesn't really have much to do with something actually existing, regardless of the possibility of something actually existing.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Puppylove
There's also a difference between believing in aliens and believing in magical invisible unicorns.

Just goes to show you that belief doesn't really have much to do with something actually existing, regardless of the possibility of something actually existing.

Well, that was actually the point I was trying to make. You might really really WANT something to be true. There might even be a possibility of it BEING true. But the more conditions, especially implausible ones, you add on to the belief, the less likely it becomes. Until it becomes one with magic unicorns.

Example:

1) "I believe that life exists outside Sol system"

See? That one's almost a gimme. If you can define "life" well, that would help. Since there's nothing but what we've got here to go by, I assume our definition has a lot of assumptions to it that might fall if you had intelligent crystals as an example, possibly.

2) "That is intelligent"

Ok, now you've taken the likelihoods down a LOT. I know it's the thing to hate humans. But Earth has spawned a few mammals and avians that can reason logically, at least to an extent. It took a long, long time, and a total revamping of the biome several times before that happened.

Maybe it's not that common an occurrence. We don't know, because we don't have enough data points. But there's the Fermi Paradox that says it doesn't happen all the time.

3) "And is gregarious, forms into social groups, and is technological"

Another issue. Say your distant intelligent beastie is, say, an intelligent grizzly bear analog? They only come together to mate, then leave. If your alien Cthulhu candidate is a non-social evolved sessile aquatic life form? They sit in one place on the sea bottom. Not going to develop a physical technology that way. You can be intelligent and yet never form into a race that can or wants to do big physical projects.

4) "and is curious, adventurous and can leave their biome to explore"

Another assumption - you could form a technical society that doesn't do research for the hell of it. Or wonder what's over the next hill. Or maybe they're anchored to their home biome by a need to swim upstream and spawn. Or they're the size of the QE2 and are aquatic.

5) "can either travel FTL or they are extremely long-lived and don't become bored"

A randomly chosen otherwise technical civilization may stop at a Newtonian understanding of physics and be happy as the clams they are. Or may not ever have the situation that leads them to the discovery of FTL. Or FTL may not be possible.

6) "and have found us"

And the selection continues to narrow. The same Carl Sagan "billions and billions of stars" thing that works so well for the Drake equation back at step 1 works just as hard against you here. You're going to have to look a lot of places, for a long time.

7) "and are interested in us"

Most true believers take this as a given. But if you were a gas creature, you might not perceive humans as intelligent. Or worth studying. Say a human craft was exploring Wolf 359 and found a fart smell. They'd wave their noses and walk on through the fields of pseudo-grass looking for a 3 eyed wombat they saw on a probe photo, and never understand they just murdered 15 ambassadors from Flatus City. Even if you knew that the fart smells were intelligent creatures, what sort of conversation would you have with a floating poot that took days to complete a sentence, and when you got it, it was sort of the equivalent of "be sure to drink your ovaltine". I don't see us spending a lot of time studying their eddas on swamp emissions.

8) "and are kind and nice and somehow have humanesque thought patterns and morals and can be understood by people, and have some sort of Roddenberry-ish Prime Directive"

I find the entire 'aliens look and act like something from Star Trek®' to be immediately suspicious. My take on it is that you will have a lot of difficulty communicating at all, much less will they look like humans. There's nothing magic about two eyes, a nose, a mouth, a head at the top, two arms and two legs. Frankly, when someone reports an alien that is humanoid, I immediately discount it. It's as likely to look like a cucumber crossed with a hydra.

9) "who breed with us for our DNA"

(facepalm) There are just too many issues with this. You can't breed with a sea cucumber, and you're going to have a lot more in common with it in terms of DNA than any creature that didn't evolve here. Who says that an alien creature even HAS DNA? Life certainly didn't start off with it here. And I imagine there are other macromolecules that could also be used for information encoding. It's just that complex life settled on that method here.

By the time you add on even a few options here, you've pretty much reduced the possibilities to zero.