Scientific evidence that that supports the theory of alien life.

i believe there's life out there but i don't understand the drake equation.it's a multiplication process and if only one of the terms included is zero the output will be zero.it's a high possibility that one of the terms included can be zero.can someone explain?is there a reason that none of the terms included can be zero.sorry for my bad language.i'm not a native english speaker.

Stars and Flags sir, Great Thread!!

You can tell it's a good one when you get people to help a thread evolve and become even greater than when it started out.

All and all, it's morphed into a very good thread about the possibility of alien life, and ufo's! Cool

Props!

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
I also studied the Betty Hill case and, particularly, the star map. The only logical conclusion is that she and Barny were telling the truth.

It's hard to tell, some call it debunked, I dont know what to call it. If you have seen the interview with her, can be found on youtube, she shows some photos of 'UFOs' some lights in the sky.

Then again those people who sound credible and I believe more, are people who want to stay anonymous and hidden, their voice changed etc. This shows they are not doing it for attention and fame, and no one knows who they are,

Betty Hil, some other abductors ALWAYS come with a book, it;s like every time they promote their book, how can one know they are not making money out of some science fiction? I dont buy it from people who promote their books, it looks like everyone who has had a case, has written a book then promotes it. These are the kind of people I cannot trust

Actually, Betty's book came a long time after. After others had made the story popular. I think Marjorie Fish's work on the starmap is evidence enough. The odds of it being coincidence are billions to one. In science, these kinds of odds are accepted as fact. Except when dealing with ETs... Or anything mainstream science rejects outright.

reply to post by Misterlondon


well done bro, thank you


truth shall be known

reply to post by Misterlondon


Wouldn't surprise me. Hell, I see evidence of "intelligent life" all around me and I just wana shoot myself.

A couple of decades ago I recall reading, possibly in Scientific American, that Virus are carried by the solar winds and some fall to earth. These are often new to earth and some, being opportunistic, cause problems for humans and or animals.

If virus do rain down on earth, they would have likely come from a planet that was destroyed some time in the past. Possibly during the collision of a large asteroid, or the explosion of a star.

OK Virus are not known to prosper on their own, they need a host in which to incubate and grow and reproduce. While the existence of those space faring virus does not indicate that sentient beings existed, it would indicate that some form of animal life existed elsewhere.

From my own perspective, it is the height of hubris to believe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. The place is too big, with too many planets to believe that life didn't exist on some other planet.

reply to post by -W1LL


Wait I'm slightly confused by your comment, for some reason you decided to compare Christianity with Buddhism. I don't understand what Christianity has got to do with Religion? The 2 things are completely different.

reply to post by Thunda


Personal beliefs? Truth is absolute not relative, so if it's true for me then its true for the whole world. So you can hardly attack my faith on the basis of it being "personal" can you now? Otherwise your attacking yourself.

I've read the thread and I don't see any scientific evidence from the OP. Some dodgy signals that could be anything and some old pictures/cave drawings does not constitute for proof of alien life. How on earth can anyone make assumptions that "ALIENS" are from other planets? How about if they really come from another dimension altogether? No one even considers these things, and yet people on this website seem to have the audacity to call themselves "truth seekers".

How can someone be a truth seeker if they reject the bible because they are to pride to consider it may actually be true?

Originally posted by Erno86
As for ET alien vistation here on Earth - Yes.... they have been here, because I've seen one or two ET Starships myself.

How do you know they weren't timeships from Earth's future, or something more exotic? Why ET?

reply to post by Misterlondon


Ezekiel's visions were apocalyptic in nature, very similar to the writings found in both Daniel and Revelation.

What Ezekiel saw were heavenly spiritual beings, not "alien life forms".

With a little research and bible study one quickly realizes that the scenes witnessed by Ezekiel, John, Daniel, and other inspired writers were visions of God and His spiritual host of heaven.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
actually something similar to your scenario has already happened...

The myths of the Dogon tribesmen of Mall, West Africa, contain astronomical knowledge which the native people could have neither learned by themselves nor guessed.

Dogon legends speak of Jupiter's four moons and Saturn's rings, which were not seen by human beings until the invention of the telescope.

They speak of the star Sirius and of a pair of invisible companions. One of them circles Sirius every fifty years, the legends declare, and is made of a metal that is the heaviest thing in the universe.

Astronomers have discovered that such an object (called "Sirius-B") does exist but only the most sophisticated and sensitive instruments -- unavailable, of course, to the Dogons -- can detect it.

Oh, yeah, the Dogon. Granting for the moment that this isn't just a load of crap (I've read some pretty convincing negative critiques of the whole Dogon business, including here), once again, this is interpretation after the fact. It wasn't that somebody went to the Dogon first and found this myth and the Dogon themselves said, yeah, this represents Sirius A and B, which you'll find out in a few decades. Somebody (Robert Temple) was shown a diagram and through a lot of bad interpretation and "leading" the witnesses, came up with the idea.

Either way, what's stopping us from really doing the experiment now, correctly, before we have do to it again in reverse? Where is the specific information about planets and star systems that we currently DON'T know about, so we can interpret it now and test it when we get the new information?

Originally posted by sidimund
it's a high possibility that one of the terms included can be zero.can someone explain? is there a reason that none of the terms included can be zero.

You are right. Actually, the more terms you add to the equation, the more chances you have of making the entire equation equal zero. The terms represent obstacles that need to be overcome before an ET civilization can happen -- bullets we managed to dodge here Earth, such as avoiding deadly solar flares or planet-destroying impacts or something as simple as life just not happening (as I said, nobody knows yet how a bunch of chemicals can combine to form a living thing). In fact, the more we learn about how hostile and deadly the universe is, the more variables we have to add to the Drake Equation, and the more chances there are that at least one of the variables equals zero, which makes the entire equation equal zero.

It's really not exactly the marvelous "proof" of ET civilization that so many people think it is. It's really the opposite -- an equation that shows how very UNLIKELY it is that there is another intelligent civilization out there capable of communicating or interacting with us. All you need is one of the variables to equal zero.

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
I also studied the Betty Hill case and, particularly, the star map. The only logical conclusion is that she and Barny were telling the truth.

It's hard to tell, some call it debunked, I dont know what to call it.

Marjorie Fish did a heck of a job trying to figure it out, but it's a lot easier to debunk now that we have some good, simple astronomy programs to work with.

The funny thing is what the "alien" tells her in the ship when he shows her the map. He never comes out and just tells her where Earth is and where they're supposedly from. He just says that if she doesn't know where she is, it would be pointless to show her where they're from. Now, to me, that's just snarky. But lately I've been thinking that maybe the 3-D map she was shown was a different kind of map than she was used to at the time. Rather than an old-fashioned map that shows a particular territory from some external point of view, maybe it was more like a modern GPS-type map, where it shows the territory from where you are right now, and it moves and changes when you move. Betty Hill wouldn't be familiar with that concept at all at the time.

So it occurs to me that not only was Marjorie Fish and others off base in that way of interpreting the map, they were making it way too hard. Maybe it showed space specifically from Earth looking out at that time and from that location. And the bigger stars (or transport Stargates or whatever) were simply the closest. The Moon. Mars. Other things in the celestial neighborhood.

What somebody needs to do is fire up their astronomy program and see what the sky looked like the night of the Hill abduction, from that time of night and that latitude on the Earth. I haven't been motivated to do it yet, but I'm curious to see where the Moon and planets were at that time and place.

Simple statistics support the idea of alien life.

In fact, the Universe should be practically teeming with it (relatively speaking)...and probably is.

We've found life in some of the most unexpected places and conditions, so even with the parameters of just life like us, we'd still (statistically speaking) see a ton of life in the Universe on planets orbiting in Earth-like orbits around Sun-like stars.

reply to post by CLPrime


I find your well phrased and substantially skeptical view at odds with the implication that you believe in an event of creation. Or maybe you misspoke when you said that you find it hard to believe that life would begin without being created.

Also, I find it nonsensical not to believe that life can become sentient, because..... we kind of have evidence for that.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


Life and sentience are a little more complicated than mainstream science tries to make them seem. This may be a bit of a shock to some people, hearing that come from me, but I think we take the existence of life for granted. We think, just because it exists on Earth, that it must, then, exist elsewhere. But, of course, that demands the assumption that life can exist spontaneously. And, even given the existence of life, we also take for granted that life will develop sentience. Intelligence is not sentience. Cats are highly intelligent, but are they sentient? Troodons were intelligent, but were they sentient? And what are/were the chances of these animals developing sentience? Of the millions of species that exist and have ever existed on Earth, homo sapiens (sapiens) is the only one to develop sentience. We are unique, and we take it for granted.
In fact, by merely saying "develop sentience," we imply that sentience is something that can be naturally obtained. In fact, Scripturally, it can't. Sentience is a gift according to God's unique plan for mankind - and I have to stop myself before my preacher side breaks out into a sermon.

My point is, we can't take the existence of life for granted. Its existence might not be so "natural" as a lot of us like to think.

Originally posted by Gazrok
We've found life in some of the most unexpected places and conditions, so even with the parameters of just life like us, we'd still (statistically speaking) see a ton of life in the Universe on planets orbiting in Earth-like orbits around Sun-like stars.

You know you can't logically generalize from one specific case (Earth, where we know there is life already) to others without knowing how any of the life on Earth got here in the first place.

Originally posted by digitalf

Originally posted by Erno86
As for ET alien vistation here on Earth - Yes.... they have been here, because I've seen one or two ET Starships myself.

That would be an interesting read, have you posted any threads on that experience ?

Sorry for the delay, for the server went down as soon as I tried to post my response too you.

No.... their are no threads, but just a few of my posts [ATS] on my other-wordly craft sightings, with at least two other witnesses; one November night, back in 1976, approx. 50 miles west of Washington D.C.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Thunda

 

Personal beliefs? Truth is absolute not relative, so if it's true for me then its true for the whole world. So you can hardly attack my faith on the basis of it being "personal" can you now? Otherwise your attacking yourself.

I've read the thread and I don't see any scientific evidence from the OP. Some dodgy signals that could be anything and some old pictures/cave drawings does not constitute for proof of alien life. How on earth can anyone make assumptions that "ALIENS" are from other planets? How about if they really come from another dimension altogether? No one even considers these things, and yet people on this website seem to have the audacity to call themselves "truth seekers".

How can someone be a truth seeker if they reject the bible because they are to pride to consider it may actually be true?

edit on 15-11-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Hey MR Christian, despite the lack of proof and objective thinking I have, I do believe the Bible is telling the truth, at least to some extent. I find it hard to logic that someone wrote so many things, just like that, for nothing, cause was bored.

BUT

Do you realize that if the Bible is correct and we are artifically created, these beings that created us are not from this planet EVEN if they were from another dimension because your demons do not pilot spaceships and this space outside your religious world is REAL SPACE so they could travel and thus they become 'Extraterrestrial by definition'

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Erno86
As for ET alien vistation here on Earth - Yes.... they have been here, because I've seen one or two ET Starships myself.

How do you know they weren't timeships from Earth's future, or something more exotic? Why ET?

My current belief on time travel to the past - It is not realistic to say that a being could travel into the past. My personal belief is that it is impossible to travel into the past, because the past has "been there and done that," and their is no way that you can change it, or travel into the past.

"Something more exotic?" --- How can their can be anything more exotic, than a starship from another planet?

"Why ET?" --- Because I could sense his Lordships presense at the time between my two sightings of the other-worldly craft or crafts.