ET is fake! For the skeptics.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Theres a few inherent issues with the concept of alien races coming to earth.

The first is motivation
The second is evidence
The third is the physics behind it.

Actually, there is only 1 issue: we know diddly squat. All your assumptions are based on human behavior and our current understanding of physics.

"They" might be a billion years more evolved and all have an IQ over 10'000, but maybe they just find it enormously funny to cruise into our galaxy and abduct a cow or two

I will enclose my standpoint and view with ET and the UFO phenomena as following.

I see this ENTIRE thread just plagued with counter-skepticism techniques. Everyone has used external resources to disqualify the stand points of ET existing in general and visting Earth, not ever skeptic, but most just find it impossible to grasp there is beings with a much higher intellegence and NO signs of immediate personality visiting earth.


Let me tell you this skeptics.

How would you feel if you we're skeptic, saw a UFO you couldn't make out to be anything but real, space craft within our air space as humans, and moving at highly irrational speeds.

Now, that you've put your mindstate into that circumstance, if you even CAN, which most mindstates on this thread are highly close minded, no one in direct, just most of the skeptics, go ahead and take in the following.

You see a UFO.

You can't explain to yourself what it was.

And YOU KNOW it wasn't something that can be explained by conventional terms.

How would you feel when everyone is telling you you're either high on drugs, you saw a meteorite, you've seen some type of weather balloon and/or phenomena, and it's just a complete misconception.

I'd say, in general, you skeptics would either believe what the conventional explanation would be for your personal siting, or you'd be as angry as I am at the skeptics.

Yes I am angry at skeptics.

And the reasoning why is they are close minded.

I will appoint, you can never jump into someone elses shoes, that just doesn't happen. So before you ever disqualify someones stand point, take into consideration your own standpoints might be completely biased like the majority of this planet's population.

Originally posted by SomeGuy34

I see this ENTIRE thread just plagued with counter-skepticism techniques. Everyone has used external resources to disqualify the stand points of ET existing in general and visting Earth...

but most just find it impossible to grasp there is beings with a much higher intellegence and NO signs of immediate personality visiting earth.

Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. At no point has anyone on this thread said anything about there not being life elsewhere in the universe. What we have done is attempt to demonstrate just how little we know our the universe beyond our own planet.

What we have done is post evidence that backs up our arguments. It is not lies or disinformation as you have attempted to claim. On the other hand, when you have been asked to back up your claims, you have refused repeatedly.

Originally posted by SomeGuy34
You see a UFO...

I have seen a UFO, on two occasions, in fact. Unlike you, I understand what the U in UFO means. I cannot explain it, and I do not make the immediately leap of logic and assume it was an alien craft. I don't know what it was; I make no assumptions.

And I am willing to bet the majority of skeptics on this board have seen something they cannot explain.

Originally posted by SomeGuy34
And the reasoning why is they are close minded.

Again and again myself and the other skeptics in this thread have said we are open to the possibility of life elsewhere, and even the possibility that it is visiting our world. We want these things to be true. But we rely on a preponderance of evidence.

Yet, you refuse to acknowledge this. You refuse to accept that we are open to these possibility. Instead, you attack us again and again as closed-minded or sheep. At the same time you are attacking us, insulting our intelligence and calling us closed-minded, you absolutely refuse to look at any of the evidence we have posted. You dismiss it out of hand, calling it lies or disinformation.

You are definition of closed-mindedness.

By the way Ezekial...err...I mean SomeGuy...

Where is the Pacific Coast of the Netherlands?

[edit on 6-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SomeGuy34


Rather simply situation someguy. First, as a skeptical person, at least for myself, I follow a standard of scientific verification and reasonable deduction. Skeptic has sortof a negative connotation at times as being "closed minded." Personally I see most "open minded" people as being far more "closed minded" then a person who steps back and looks at things rationally and skeptically.

If I saw a UFO, and I have, this is the situation I would take:

First, could I identify the shape of the craft, if I had a picture, I would analyze it and try to match it to any known or proposed US or foreign aircraft. Most sightings in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were all of triangular craft flying silent. Little did most of those people know that those were just our new stealth fighters and our new stealth bomber program, which definitely would've looked alien.

If I couldn't identify the shape to match with a current or speculated aircraft, I would examine it to correlate with known magneto-spheric and atmospheric anomalies. Could it be ball lighting, a meteor etc.

If I couldn't identify that, I would have to reasonably assume what I saw was an Unidentified Flying object.

Does that mean its alien? no, but it would be a slim possibility, pending further evidence.

reply to post by WolfofWar



Very well articulated response.

I appreciate your feedback.

I'd like to state, my personal siting was unidentifiable by any conventional terms.

It was bright white, dissappeared, reappeared on different sides of the sky, darted at unimaginable speeds that would crush a human due to - inertia.

However I believe there is methods of creating so to say your own enviroment within a controlled area, and unbinding that controlled area from normal atmospheric conditions and the gravity of earth itself.

I have also reviewed many "fake" as most would call it scientific plauses that state this is possible. And by my understanding of how they bend electromagnetic fields and/or unbend them, it does seem plausible. However to a modern day skeptical scienctist he wouldn't bother wasting his time trying to create a enviroment that isn't bound to the intertia of earths electromagnetic fields / gravity.

However, no one has the funds to proove it impossible because it'd take a whole lot of cash.

I would like to state that someone disqualified Majestic 12 earlier in the post.

Why would anyone fake something like this? Why in the hell of this planet we live on would any government release documents from their archives due to persistant beckering by ex-employees OF the government for the stuff they worked on themselves?

I will state, anyone disqualifying the Majestic 12 team is desperate. There would of never been government documents to begin with saying something of this Majestic 12 team if it didn't exist to begin with....

I think everyone is really just believing that this worlds technology as far as time/space manipulation is at a standstill, which it's NOT. I also believe that no one would accept the fact ET or UFO exists until it's directly in front of their face.

However I've done extensive research as a believer and I think I've found more evidence that is contrary to skepticism than that of the skeptics themselves.

Please don't bout that last paragraph though, it's a personal standpoint.

Best regards

Some guy.

Being skeptical means one doesn't rule something out, but doesn't rule something in either.
I'm a skeptic, in that I don't believe something exists unless I've seen/experienced it myself. For example, I don't actually know that the Egyptian Pyramids exist, but the weight of evidence posed by people I trust (plus all the postcards and video footage) allows me to have faith in their existence, but this faith can be altered. (If someone came to me with evidence that the Pyramids are a hoax, I would weigh up the new evidence).
Going back to the original post, it seems ludicrous to me to believe the "Roswell Autopsy" video was made 50 years ago. The makers of the video revealed precisely how they faked the clip in a number of TV shows and articles. The fact the video was a hoax does not mean, however, that there wasn't an alien landing at Roswell, or that an autopsy wasn't performed. A skeptic keeps and open mind and awaits more eveidence.

As for the Drake Equation, that's not a proof at all. It's a theory. It happens to be a theory I support, based on my limited ability to grasp the size of the universe. The Drake Equation stipulates (in layman's terms) that there are so many planets in the universe that there must be some like our own, so they could bear life. The Drake Equation does NOT prove aliens have come to Earth. Indeed, I would use the Drake Equation to show that (with so many millions of planets to chose from) an alien race would be highly unlikely to visit our own boring solar system.

Like most of the posters in this thread, I have not said aliens do not exist and I won't say for certain that what you've seen is or isn't alien in nature. None of us can prove such a thing, so to start a thread claiming proof is rather self-defeating.
I don't rule out extra-terrestrial visits to this planet, by the way, and I'm glad a certain poster kept pointing out that the U in UFO stands for "Unidentified". Some of you claim to seen mysterious sights in the sky. Just because Some Ezekiel Guy couldn't explain the phenomena, it doesn't mean it was alien. It MIGHT have been, but a true skeptic must keep an open mind.
All those links in which government and military officials swore they saw UFOs are fine. Did any of them swear they saw alien lifeforms? No, they saw objects that were identified. Big difference.

The inability of some readers to separate facts from opirions and beliefs is quite worrying.

I think there's a way to categorize the basic question that will satisfy everyone.

Make three cateories:

1. Outliers. These would be theories, speculations, probabilities which have a very low, but not zero likelihood. I.e. there may be intelligences which are very unlike our carbon based life, such as electron clouds which show some of the aspects of what we call 'sentience'.

2. Possibility. These would be theories that have at least a 50-50 chance of being possible. I.e. there may be other life in our Galaxy.

3. Certainty. These would be proven assertions. I.e. There is life on Earth.

Does it really matter which choices you put in which category? Sure, because you can't put Purple People Eaters in the 'Certainty' category.

Now, I think we also have room for a fourth category, and that might be 'Irrelevant'.

Here I would put speculation about things that will never have any effect on us, our existence or our understanding.

An example might be, the following.

There is a multicelled slime mold that lived on a planet in a Galaxy that is a million ly from Earth, but it died out when that sun went super-nova.

Sure, it proves that there is other life in the Universe, but that slime mold will never come here, will never interact with us and we will never know it is there. It falls into the realm of 'accident' since it's the only example (for the sake of this argument).

In a very real way, so does the idea of any life in any Galaxy other than ours, because the chance of finding out about it, is so infintesimal as to be equivalent to zero. But we still have a category for it, because it can be the subject of fantasy, or science fiction.

One might also put other things in the 'Irrelevant' category, depending on your point of view.

Let's say that there is life in EVERY solar system in the Galaxy, but it's all just single-celled, or multi-celled life, similar to bacteria. It will never come here, never evolve, we will probably never know about it.

Let's say the Universe was teeming with life 4 billion years ago, but it all died out except for life on Earth. In a very real sense, this is also irrelevant, except mainly to fuel speculation that during that epoch, something made life a certainty, but now, it seems to have vanished.

And here we see the beauty of this kind of categorization.

How many have considered that we are not the Beginning of Life in the Universe, but are the End, i.e. the last survivors?

By categorizing your views and the possibilities you open up new lines of speculation, and allow more expansive thought.

We are not locked into the endless debate over 'yes there is, no there isn't'. That whole approach is rather pointless.

Anyway, sorry to go on and on, but perhaps this will be useful.

The Three Drake Equation Sets.

People keep mis-categorizing the famous Drake Equation. This is understandable, because it is so famous that people think they know what it entails. However, there are subtle differences.

Thus, I'd like to propose three sets.
Set I (standard model)
Set II (space faring model)
Set III (extra-galactic model)

Set I. This is the standard equation. It involves:
a) our own Galaxy (NOT the entire Universe)
b) detectable communication (not existence, not necessarily sentience as we know it. (non-carbon based life).
c) duration. One of the big terms in the equation is length of time of broadcast of the communication. Obviously any term less than 10,000 years makes the equation less than 1.

Set II. The Drake equation set for Space Faring Civilizations. It involves:
a) the factors required to allow a technological sentient civilization to get off planet. It includes the size of the planet, the amount of minerals or raw materials to build a mode of conveyance, the size of the creatures (too big and they could not overcome their gravity field) and other things, including a stable social system, moderate temperatures, and relatively low hazards in the vicinity of the planet (for instance).
b) the robustness of the civilization. If the Civ. has no back up world, (probably a minimum of five worlds) then it is likely to meet with an Extinction event before they can explore very far, so this becomes a priority

Set III. The Drake Equation for the entire Universe. This requires all of the above conditions be met, plus includes factors which incorporate the Fermi Paradox. It would also require at least a robust Type II civilization, because any less than that would not be able to interact with other Galaxies. Being confined to one's own Galaxy, fascinating as it may be, it's irrelevant to beings in other Galaxies, since we will never meet. If there were Type II or Type III Civilizations, then it is very likely that even distant observers would detect their presence, because by their very definition, Type III can use the energy from the entire output of a Galaxy.

The important thing to remember is that at no time does the Drake Equation, Set I talk about sentient beings coming here. It only addresses detectible communication signals.

Set II discusses space-faring, but exposes the difficult requirements, including the setting up of a robust system of at least five worlds that duplicate the original world, allowing exploration without worrying about an Extinction event wiping out all progress.

Set III, Extra Galactic civilizations is largely irrelevant, but allows for fantasy, science fiction, and outlier discussions. Any civilization that could harness the energy output of an entire galaxy would be apparent even at a distance.

A corollary to this is that there is a possibility that Type II and Type III civilizations might have a reason to mask their existence. This is fine, however, it moves the discussion into the 'Irrelevant' category, because for all intents and purposes, we have no power to unmask, or abrogate any quarantine.

Again a long post, but hopefully helpful.

Outliers.

This category might require more explanation. These would include explanations and hypotheses that are contain elements of the highly fantastic. Some people might put everything that is not prosaic and human/earth based in this category. That's fine. It's a matter of point of view. Others might put things that are truly bizarre, extraordinarily alien, or unusually improbable.

For human, carbon-based life, any speculation about non-human, non-carbon based life has to be considered an 'outlier' type of theory. It's possible, but because of the mere 'alienness' of it, it might have more or less impact on us. We may be able to detect it, but not communicate with it. An example might be an intelligent gas cloud, or a being made of rock which exists on a geological time-scale. We could also not communicate with it, because our lives are too short.

Another type of 'outlier' might be giant intelligent tree creatures in the Andromeda galaxy. Being giant, and being trees, they might not be able to leave the planet, might not be able to communicate with us. Of course, they might have a phase that allows this, perhaps a seedling phase like oak tree seeds, that can create propulsion and go into space and voyage space. But it remains to be seen if they can have any meaningful interaction with us (except as a threat). Still it's fun, and even useful to speculate. In fact by talking about them as an outlier, we open ourselves to speculation.

Now for an alien, say a silicon-based life form, WE would be in their 'outlier' category, because the focus of their speculation would tend to be life forms which are similar enough to them to allow communication or interaction. Of course since silicon and carbon are similar molecules, i.e. they can form multiple covalent bonds, we and they are the least alien of the outlier category.

Once you get into the more alien categories of 'outlier' types, the less relevant it becomes, to a degree.

That is the more alien something is, the less likely it will be that they are able to communicate or interact with us (except maybe as a threat)

Another category of 'outlier' would be other fantastical theories which might explain the ET hypothesis, such as 'interdimensional beings', 'demons', 'earthmen from the future' and other things. By giving them a class in the outlier category, we allow ourselves to look outwardly and inwardly for explanations and not miss something that might be right here under our noses while we look to the skies.

However, being outliers, i.e. more-or-less fantastical explanations, they may not deserve much of our time as an explanation for the phenomenon.

The beauty of this categorization is that it both opens up our minds and allows us to focus.

By realizing the likelihood of something it may be more relevant and useful to research human perception and things like temporal lobe lesions to explain certain aspects that seem like extra-terrestrial phenomen. While these researches should be high on our list they would not be inclusive or exclusive. There would still be room for research by competent and respected scientists into the outlier categories.

Both sides can argue till the cows come home, its actually a coin flip and it will all come out in the wash.

"Majic Eyes"? A cousin to "Angel Eyes", the bad guy in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"?

Originally posted by SomeGuy34
I would like to state that someone disqualified Majestic 12 earlier in the post.

Why would anyone fake something like this? Why in the hell of this planet we live on would any government release documents from their archives due to persistant beckering by ex-employees OF the government for the stuff they worked on themselves?

I will state, anyone disqualifying the Majestic 12 team is desperate. There would of never been government documents to begin with saying something of this Majestic 12 team if it didn't exist to begin with....

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the history behind the Majestic-12 documents. Most of the UFO community believes they are fakes; only a minority of researchers believe they are genuine. The reason the Majestic-12 files still find acceptance is a large part due to the entertainment media; it has good PR. Being featured in video games, RPGs, TV and books, it has given the documents an air of authenticity that doesn't exist.

Prevailing wisdom among many UFO researchers is that the Majestic-12 documents ARE NOT genuine documents. There is even a theory that they were produced by the government to discredit UFO researchers.

You obviously ignored the links I presented detailing some of the problems with the Majestic-12 documents. But that is on par for you, seeing how absolutely and desperately closed-minded you are.

Once again, SomeGuy...where is the Pacific Coast of the Netherlands?

[edit on 7-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Whatever merit this thread once had, it has since dispensed with, after someguy and prophet decided to hijack it for their own personal argument.

I believe that the point of this thread was to discuss an equation for the probability of life elsewhere. The "create thread" button doesn't cost anything to use, so why not use it and give your debate a legitimate platform?

The sensus tells me that aliens do exist, I find most disbeliever ignorant.

Has anyone ever watched 'UFO Hunters' from History channel?

I think it's obvious that if the UK Police has it's own UFO documentary system, that something is undoubtedly in the world flying around carrying extraterrestial entities.