How do you think PROOF of ET Civilization will manifest, if at all?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

This is one reason why I'd enjoy seeing evidence of life elsewhere. It'll be good to know we aren't the custodians of the only intelligent, technological life. The confirmation that life is babbling along elsewhere would be a hallelujah moment and a relief. I've waffled enough...

Well Kandinsky, you have been shown that "evidence" you claim you'd "enjoy seeing", but for reasons that have no logic that I can discern, you, and nearly everybody rejects that evidence...typically "out of hand".

KellyPrettyBear; Yes, we most definitely have an idea, a very good idea. (OH, and , Kelly, the desire to not be alone DOESN'T spring from a desire to be "saved"...it springs from a desire for a social peer...a desire to not be alone.)

Y'all can see this evidence here...
(Please be aware; this is an interactive page, mouse over stars for details...read other links in main menu)

So, there is the evidence y'all are pining for, the only reason this isn't considered PROOF is because all y'all refuse to accept science and insist that the analysis is wrong...without bothering to actually find out...do your own due diligence on this (I did and was pleasantly surprised). Many have also mentioned several papers, and "reports" that attempt to "debunk" the astronomy of this evidence, what most fail to recognize is that ALL other analyses are quite old, and rely on obsolete data, or are complete frauds that make a mockery of Astronomy, and astrophysics (the worst part of that is that many of those are Astronomers...sad).

Seriously, I read all these posts wanting to know, wondering what ET must be like...Have any of y'all ever heard of Hermes Trismegistus? You should seriously look him up, then read everything you can find attributed to him (doing so will give you a first year college level education in Physics...minus the math). The teachings of Hermes will also show you how to "know" what ET is like, at least in the broader strokes

What needs to be known and remembered; there IS evidence of ET, and, it is very good evidence. Evidence, that so far, NO ONE has been able to refute.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
Nothing short of a 10 mile wide mothership hovering low over a major American city in broad daylight, directly witnessed by millions and continuously reported live by every major news agency will do. Otherwise it will be written off as CGI or secret military technology.

If it wasn't obvious and incontrovertible, why wouldn't it be written off as CGI or military? "Ooh, there's a light in the sky! Obviously aliens!" That would just be dumb.

a reply to: james1947

There are people who swear up and down about the earth being flat, or that they have pet unicorns too.. they can go one for a thousand pages with their 'proofs'.

But let's say that I wanted to find your 'proof' as having any merit (I don't).. but let's say that I did.. it wouldn't matter in any way. That would then just mean that there are two people, not just one, who believe something..

The standard of 'proof' when it comes to 'UFOs' needs to be so high.. on the level of the mothership blocking out the sun as it hovers over Washington, DC and then other world capitals.. plus quite a lot more evidence than simply that.

That's just how it is.

It's because of the 70 y ears of deception that we have firmly documented.

Too many people (and organizations, such as the CIA) have cried wolf for 70 years now.. that's the problem.. not individuals that you might choose to be frustrated with. The US Government has crapped UFOlogy up.

That's the long and the short of it.

Kev

a reply to: james1947

Well Kandinsky, you have been shown that "evidence" you claim you'd "enjoy seeing", but for reasons that have no logic that I can discern, you, and nearly everybody rejects that evidence...typically "out of hand".

Don't let your blinders give you conjunctivitis, it's a horrible affliction.

My logic is I haven't seen proof of ETI that satisfies me; you've found your proof and I'm cool with that. I'm satisfied there's proof of many extraordinary things and what they might represent is too obscured to pin down.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I'm satisfied there's proof of many extraordinary things and what they might represent is too obscured to pin down.

Agreed. It would be nice if there was some blatant and undeniable proof of ET, but at this point the whole notion just seems too pat. Like everything else in this existence, nothing is ever that simple and easy. In fact, if "aliens" did land their saucer on the White House lawn, and there would be a lot of people including myself who would be calling fake, because it would be too on the nose.

I tend to agree that the proof (if any) would be in the form of a broadcast EM signal, thousands if not millions of years old, which we won't be able to comprehend.

If humanity even survives that long.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah the brunt of the scores of good UFO-related reports become a Gordian Knot wrapped up in a Mobius strip. Some lend themselves to ETI and then how are the others explained? What the F happened to Parker and Hickson? Or Bob Taylor? Then there's Minot '68 or Colares. Lots of apparent objects and no way of knowing where they came from or whether they existed in any material sense at all.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I don't think we want it too, If they show up here we are in trouble you just don't travel that far too have a look see . We are making a big mistake sending signals out into the unknown really big mistake sending the probes especially Voyager .

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Blue Shift
Yeah the brunt of the scores of good UFO-related reports become a Gordian Knot wrapped up in a Mobius strip. Some lend themselves to ETI and then how are the others explained? What the F happened to Parker and Hickson? Or Bob Taylor? Then there's Minot '68 or Colares. Lots of apparent objects and no way of knowing where they came from or whether they existed in any material sense at all.

All we can be sure of at this point is that something is happening. But given the diversity, contradictions and downright illogical nature of so many reports, we still really have no idea what that "something" is. Even though I live in it, I recognize that given my physical and mental limitations as a human being I have only a very superficial and distorted understanding of the nature of reality. Just enough to get by, but not nearly enough to put all the pieces together.

It's funny, because we look for "intelligent life" beyond Earth, but we still don't understand what either "intelligence" or "life" really is.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It's funny, because we look for "intelligent life" beyond Earth, but we still don't understand what either "intelligence" or "life" really is.

That sentence demonstrates wisdom on your part. I wish that more people had that as the default starting point of conversation; we'd have much more fruitful conversations on ATS.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: james1947

There are people who swear up and down about the earth being flat, or that they have pet unicorns too.. they can go one for a thousand pages with their 'proofs'.

But let's say that I wanted to find your 'proof' as having any merit (I don't).. but let's say that I did.. it wouldn't matter in any way. That would then just mean that there are two people, not just one, who believe something..

The standard of 'proof' when it comes to 'UFOs' needs to be so high.. on the level of the mothership blocking out the sun as it hovers over Washington, DC and then other world capitals.. plus quite a lot more evidence than simply that.

So...why don't you find any merit in my analysis?

Is it because I used faulty data? Or perhaps procedure?

I truly would like to know...

And, I guess we have many "standards" for scientific "proof"? Of course, in science few things ever rise to the level of "proof", except in mathematics...

Also, what I've done is not proof, it is evidence. Although, it should be far more compelling that most make it out to be, probably due to very few actually understanding it, and the problem is that I'm just "some guy on the Internet". I wonder, IF the context of the release of my evidence were different, if its acceptance would be different...even by you.

My evidence is vastly different than "flat Earthers", or unicorn believers. Neither of them have ANY valid scientific data to support their hypothesis, while my evidence is solely based upon Astrophysics, Astronomy, computer vision and computer science. I'd say that the words of a flat earther are nothing compared to mine, in this context. As far as pets go; I don't know about Unicorns, never seen one in the flesh. But, I could extol you for many pages, perhaps dozens, about my "pet" Wolf. But as far as proof that I have a pet Wolf...one photograph would convince you. (on that...if you do a search of "Timber Wolf" and look at the images...you have seen my "Raevyn".)

Anyway enough of that, my point is that my evidence should think of itself as dishonored when compared to anything a flat earther, or a Unicorn parent might have or say. They are completely different classes of evidence/proof. So...if you must attempt to derive comparisons; please at least use something remotely scientific.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: james1947
Don't let your blinders give you conjunctivitis, it's a horrible affliction.

My logic is I haven't seen proof of ETI that satisfies me; you've found your proof and I'm cool with that. I'm satisfied there's proof of many extraordinary things and what they might represent is too obscured to pin down.

Sorry man, but from where I'm at; it is you with the blinders...And, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with your allusion to the "blinders". You state that you are "cool" with my position, yet you offer a veiled insult. Which makes me believe that you aren't cool with any of this.

And, it is just this kind of passive rejection of my analysis, without any questions, that I begin to object to...it's kind of like you just want reality to go away so that you can live your comfortable life and not really think about these kind of things...

And, of course; its not "my proof", it is a scientific study of scrap of paper with an obscure drawing on it tha just happens to be a true artifact of Extraterrestrial interaction with Earth...no blinders, no flat earth, no Unicorns...no Wolves either...just astrophysics, astrometrics, and computer vision, and a scrap of paper from the early 1960's...

What if ETs don’t think humans are even worth checking out?

Isn’t it just a tad narcissistic to think we’re all that and a bag of chips? So much so that ETs would stop everything they’re working on to check us out?

I don’t have any answers; I just hope that in the event there are ETs that desire to disclose, they are somewhat benevolent. After all, the fact we’re in 2018 and still only have theories indicates they may be a bit much for us.

a reply to: james1947

just astrophysics, astrometrics, and computer vision, and a scrap of paper from the early 1960's

Which we might successfully use to program ourselves, as intended.
Not much different than a Turing Machine.
What is proof and how will we know if the civilization is dead?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Agreed. It would be nice if there was some blatant and undeniable proof of ET, but at this point the whole notion just seems too pat. Like everything else in this existence, nothing is ever that simple and easy. In fact, if "aliens" did land their saucer on the White House lawn, and there would be a lot of people including myself who would be calling fake, because it would be too on the nose.

I tend to agree that the proof (if any) would be in the form of a broadcast EM signal, thousands if not millions of years old, which we won't be able to comprehend.

If humanity even survives that long.

Blatant &c. proof you will probably never see. On the other hand; I have offered blatant, and, undeniable evidence...(I've only ever seen failed attempts to deny)...

I always get a good laugh when someone pops up with the ole EM signal...Y'all are aware, I hope, of how rapidly EM degrades/dissipates over distance (p = P/d^2)...it is so extreme that IF you were to take a very sensitive radio receiver to Alpha Centauri, you would not be able to receive any EM from our Sun, despite the fact that you can still "see" it. You could, or course, still receive the signal with specialized Radio Astronomy equipment, but, you would not be able to extract any "intelligence" (data, modulation, etc.) from the signal. And, IF you received a signal that was "millions of years old"...it came from a natural source, like some sort of mega super nova, and NOT from any civilization.

Anyway, to all y'all; stop saying we have no evidence, we have no idea. We have very good evidence, and a very good idea.

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, to all y'all; stop saying we have no evidence, we have no idea. We have very good evidence, and a very good idea.

Oh, not with the Betty Hill map again. Sheesh.
www.armaghplanet.com...

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, to all y'all; stop saying we have no evidence, we have no idea. We have very good evidence, and a very good idea.

Oh, not with the Betty Hill map again. Sheesh.
www.armaghplanet.com...

That hack!

1. I also used Hipparcos...Hipparcos flags close binaries, and variable stars...so go and check this for your self.
2. Pis 107 and 54 are not variable stars, there is no flag for variability in Hipparcos for either star, no other study classifies them as variable...so your "authority" is wrong on that account.
3. Tau(1) Eridani, unfortunately there is little data available for this star, however, there is no "proximity" flag in Hipparcos, so the closeness is in question...it is listed as a "spectrographic" Binary, but I haven't found any data that indicates is actual distance.
4. Gliese 67; while this is a binary star it companion only gets as close as about 4.2AU, and as far away as 10.5AU. We don't know the affect that has on planetary evolution. again, this star has no proximity flag in Happarcos. Gliese 67 was identified in September 2003 by astrobiologist Margaret Turnbull from the University of Arizona in Tucson as one of the most promising nearby candidates for hosting life based on her analysis of the HabCat list of stars.

Both Tau(1) Eridani, and, Gliese 67 are the right class and of an age that could support advanced life (like Humans)...perhaps it should be noted that these four stars are listed as "exploration" on Betty's map, which kind of makes sense...

Basically, that analysis ignored most of the data in the Hipparcos database, and most of the aux data used is now obsolete.

a reply to: james1947

I'm cool with whatever you believe in and it was you who brought the snark; don't be dismayed when someone responds accordingly. You've posted about the star map in the past and I explained why the map wasn't good enough evidence for me. What I didn't do was try and force you to agree or to ridicule your opinion.

When I say 'blinders,' it's because you bounced in to the thread with a pile of assumptions and have continued them in this post despite the friendly respect I've shown you over the years.

And, it is just this kind of passive rejection of my analysis, without any questions, that I begin to object to...it's kind of like you just want reality to go away so that you can live your comfortable life and not really think about these kind of things...

I'm not going to be baited into debating your star map analysis. We'll disagree from the outset and the twain will never meet so what's the point?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I believe that before government admission or wide scale visitation which once and for all ends all doubt that it will be our own genetic information which proves that we in fact did not even originate on earth or that we have been modified by those not originating from earth...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: james1947

I'm cool with whatever you believe in and it was you who brought the snark; don't be dismayed when someone responds accordingly.

Apologies...anything like that is unintentional. Oh, I should probably add; it may be an indication of my insensitivity...

I'm not going to be baited into debating your star map analysis. We'll disagree from the outset and the twain will never meet so what's the point?

I'm not trying to bait anybody into debating my analysis, and I expect some to disagree. Though, without the discussion how is anyone supposed to learn anything?

How am I going to "see" any faults in my logic, or in the programming, or math?

What I "see" is something that is nearly the holy graail of ufology, and, I want someone to show me where/how I wrong, IF I am. And, I want the discussion to be intelligent and scientific...not someone denying the analysis without any specifics.

Decoded FRB

Explicitly FRB121102, saving that, another one.

Secondary theory - The communications leap beyond light speed. I have a feeling that there may be more truth to the "we haven't heard them because we're looking in the wrong way, with old technology they aren't using."

I ponder the idea that, there is some way in which quantum particle behavior is being utilized as a means of communication for countless civilizations, and one day we might figure out how to tap into that information ultra highway.