Are we looking in the right places for alien visitors

I guess I've puzzled about this on and off for a while. Here are a few of my thoughts of which I would welcome yours particularly if its on the micro theme.

Let me say I haven't seen an alien, well I don't think so anyway. I have pondered the possibility that I may have seen them and have not realised what I am looking at. I'm not going to link with typical alien pictures we have all seen depictions across ATS and the Internet in general. Perhaps they are absolutely nothing like that.

I first thought that “they” may not be completely biological after so many reports of UFOs moving in erratic manners that is to say zig zaging at high speed. Without some kind of technology that could counter this something living would surly be crushed. Perhaps then “they” were partly robotic or even totally robotic. If this were the case then there would be no need to be large maybe smaller is the order of the day, Smaller would certainly make it more practical for traveling large distances even if wormhole technology was a capability for them.. Actual distance travelled would cost less and via wormhole it would be much easier to generate a smaller wormhole. On the other hand if wormhole capability was not available time wouldn't be so important to robotic intelligence.

Its almost like we might be looking in the wrong place. It could be “they” are under our noses all the time. Its just that we are not looking or perhaps more to the point not noticing. If say the higher scale robots de-fragmented into smaller items like microbots, perhaps they even breakdown to the smaller nanobot. So instead of everyone looking up perhaps we should all be looking down.

As I said previously I'm particularly interested in the micro theme surly it must be equally possible as say biological aliens.

A crazy thought I guess but anyone else thought this or is it always the larger classical aliens that have bilateral symmetry?

Well I can tell you where we won't find them.

SETI..... Silly Effort To Investigate.

Interesting idea, I like it. I'm surprised there isn't more research into mini and micro UFOs. Sure there's the rods phenomena, but a lot of those can be attributed to birds/insects moving faster than what the framerate of the camera can resolve. Their behavior is just too typical to that of known animals.

Having seen a weird object, I still can't rule them out. And the size of the thing I saw fits in this category. I have seen at one point what appeared to be a metallic spherical beach ball sized object while watching hawks circle. The problem is that it's no more distinguishable than a typical grocery store mylar balloon. But the reason I saw it as peculiar is that it was moving very straight (none of that rocking or drifty motion) in a b-line as if on rails, and it was going in a direction opposite that the clouds and ground-level winds. If it was a balloon, it was going the wrong way. So I just sat there watching it. Whatever it was, it seemed pretty harmless. (If it was a device, I wouldn't mind having one. The way it was stable and its size would make an awesome R/C camera platform.) Yet I remain skeptical of most sightings, because of the problems in verifying them. So I don't expect too much regard to my own account either, not like I was expecting it or keeping a log.

As I said, unless you're personally witnessing an object, small objects are easy to dismiss as typical R/C or UAVs, balloons, or chinese lanterns. For a vid to distinguish behavior that is separate from typical drifitng, you'd have to show instrumentation that tracks windspeed and direction. (And even then ground level winds can be different, so having something move opposite clouds, or showing a known tethered balloon at similar height to give an idea of upper-level wind by how it drifts.) Another problem is that digital video evidence from one source may not be good enough anymore. (Even I can do some nifty things with Carrara & Wax on an old computer, if given enough setup and render time. It's not like you need a studio or expensive software.)

And you'd also have to rule out things like 3D laser projection. This can be done if there's water vapor or enough particulates in the air. (If the sky is a bit hazy, it's likely to work.) It's not everyday technology because the mirrors and optics needed to rapidly change the focal plane aren't cheap. Yet there is proof of neat things that can be done with existing technology that a lot of people don't know about, and that can easily hoax UFOs.

(I suspect the morphing UFO over Mexico was somebody playing with this concept as a technology demonstrator. And that's because it was staying around a contrail that it could be projected on. And if you have the money to buy or make one of these, you can also get lasers in just about any color. It's not like a few years back where the pallete was limited.)

Regardless of the problems regarding validation, mini and nano-UFOs that act as drones or are robotic aliens themselves should be a UFO Hunter subject. (Provided they could get around to it.) It's just that finding cases for non-man-made objects that could be backed up with good evidence will be exceptionally hard.

Outside of terrestrial UFOs, small objects in space would be difficult to distinguish from other junk and natural debris. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack if there were an iPod sized bracewell probe sitting or floating around somewhere in our solar system. You'd need some crazy luck to be close enough to talk to it, and then possibly recover its data. If not relying on luck, you'd have to be spamming out mini-probes of your own in the thousands just to screen for such possible artifacts.

BTW, on a lighter note there's also a funny short animation on Youtube relating to the idea you presented. At least I liked it.

reply to post by pauljs75


Hi pauljs75

Well I was going to clip some of your text and comment but to be honest its easier for now to say I couldn't agree more.

More and more I disregard the classic UFO video because they are easy to fake and all that happens is a ton of people start analysing them quoting on them. Its pointless because even if one were real we are in a situation of "cry wolf". Besides I still think smaller is the more obvious physic solution to most space travel problems and there are many.