The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

My intent is to point out that when claims of alien causation are show to be unfounded, information related to those incidents has to be eliminated as "evidence" of aliens.

For example, the "go fast" Navy tape was debunked (many times, actually), so it can not truthfully be referenced as evidence anymore.

You claim you want investigation.

But, it isn't investigation if there is also a requirement that the results of the investigation are ignored.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm fine with you having your own "best guess". If you want to believe in aliens, fine. But, I'm going to push back when there is promotion of debunked claims. Further the "UFOlogists" who continue to base their position on debunked claims are disqualifying themselves. They state that their beliefs are based on false information and that in general they ignore investigation.

Why should anyone listen to "UFOlogists" who do that?

 

OK, I'm glad to hear that.

Again, I'm not objecting to you having a general or specific belief that there are alien visits to Earth. I don't believe that even slightly, as for myself I need evidence. Plus, the physics involved in such travel are a stupendous barrier.

Also, those who ARE interested in life that isn't human include our whole space exploration effort as well as those looking for signs of other types of life that have once lived on Earth. Those scientists would ALL be wildly excited about lifeforms that are outside of the tree of life that has existed on Earth.

Also, the idea that our military is ignoring objects flying around the USA just makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.

 

We are on the exact same page here. I have no problem deleting reports that are disproven. But I don't spend every free, waking moment, searching for debunkings. I have heard of enough cases, so that no one new case, unless there is something extraordinary about it, is very important to me, or changes my overall view.

What is interesting, however, is that the military authority that released the videos, said that they had no explanation, for these sightings. That they would not have been able to figure out the simple solution, in your video, seems very odd. But in your video, the host shows the military document on the incident, listing "balloon," as the likely explanation. So why would the DoD, or whoever, say to the public, that all these were a complete mystery?

That's the real mystery.

 

I dislike that, myself, and it causes me to be far more doubtful of anything said by any person who has made claims that are outlandish, improperly-predicated, or merely half-truths, used to portray speculation as fact.

 

I'm fine with that, though I will point out that you are being prejudiced, in your explanation, by saying, "I (you: Will R.) need evidence." It is only evidence, that has won me over.

Might I suggest that a less patronizing way to express that idea, would be for you to say that your standard of evidence, to enable you to be swayed from your pre-existing bias against the notion (as due to, e.g., your judgement about the distances involved), is a higher one, than mine. The difference, in my mind, is that I gauge the evidence for ET craft, alongside the evidence for any other causation. And there are just some cases, for which no other speculation is nearly as credible. And as long as even a quite small percentage of sightings are genuine, non-Earth craft, it is irrelevant, how many fake sightings there are.

You see how this is merely a speculation, on your part? I see why you think this way, probably because you feel that you would be excited by, and receptive to, genuine, unquestionable proof (which may or may not be the actual truth), so you assume that others would be as logical & impartial as you imagine that you would be. But people, in general, don't carry on that way: they become invested in their conceptual reality, and so highly resistant to any information that would upset their mind's apple cart. This includes scientists.

According to Chris Mellon (fmr. Undersect'y of Defense), who has spoken about it with both legislators, & top Generals, there is a significant portion of these, who refuse to get involved in this, in any way, because they believe UFOs to be DEMONS! I know that sounds crazy but, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, welcome to the monkey house!

IMO, expecting humans to always act logically, or reasonably, is a debilitating flaw in your way of sizing-up the issue.

And yet, Harry Reid-- who should be aware of, up until recently, all the serious threats, that we are monitoring, says that is not the case, with UFOs. So how do you justify writing him off?

It seems that your are more swayed by what appears to you as the most sensible way that the government should proceed-- although you have no proof that this is, in fact, what they are doing-- in preference over actual, knowledgeable insiders who are frustrated because this is NOT what is happening.

 

The evidence that UFO’s are demons seem about equal to the evidence that they are aliens.

 

On the issue of what is evidence, my main point is that if it is debunked, it isn't evidence. And, I think you agree with that. So, I'm assuming we agree that the Navy tape are not evidence.

I wouldn't count myself as "won over". I would count myself as requiring something MAJOR, as the barrier provided by physics as well as our current ability to examine the nearby cosmos makes visitation, especially by a life form, stupendously difficult. If we just don't know what it was that was seen, that's really not good enough to assume the barrier of physics has been overcome. I can't imagine a speculation that should be considered as overwhelming the barrier of physics.

I'm well aware that not everyone sticks to logic or has even a rudimentary understanding of physics. And, I think almost everyone including myself could fall victim to bad or absent logical thinking at various times.

Also, there have been times when scientists would not look at UFO claims for the simple reason that being associated with the field would be detrimental to their own credibility.

Let's face it. The field of "UFOlogy" has been permeated by total nonsense. That is not grounds for dismissing the possibility of a visit, but the field has spent years killing its own credibility like it was their PURPOSE to avoid all credibility.

Today, we still see UFOlogy pumping the Navy tapes!!!

I don't know what's up with Harry Reid. But, if he seriously thinks DoD an our intel groups aren't watching then fine. However, in that case the rest of those with equally high clearance for monitoring US defense and intel are also aware, at least after Harry Reid's claims.

I just don't see it as logical that our defense and intel community would ignore the events that are claimed. And, there is ZERO chance that the Navy didn't know full well that the releasted Navy tapes were bunk. Our military didn't fail trigonometry in high school. And, they know what heat plumes from aircraft look like - they design missiles to go after that.

We depend on our DoD and intel groups with our congress representing us with monitoring capability and I see this as only one of the areas where we don't have public knowledge of whether "enough" is being done. Besides the absolutely required secrecy, it's not as if "enough" is something that can easily be measured.

 

Nothing will ever be enough until they find aliens, uncover new physics, and invent a food synthesizer to make me dinner automatically.

 

I don't need to disprove anything...consensus among the scientific community is there is no evidence of ET's visiting Earth...period...

 

And you thought I, or anyone, was unaware of this?

Yeah, no foolin'. And I believe they are being bent, by social pressures, into ignoring one of the most important scientific phenomenon ever.

 

You can't even define 'they'?? Are you talking about every scientist across the world who has reviewed miscellaneous UFO sightings? ALL of them in some covert conspiracy purposely ignoring what only you know?

Anecdotal information can be fun, interesting, thought provoking, etc. but it's not proof of anything. I hope some ET's show up soon but until then...it's just our imagination running amok...

 

That's a common meme: "I'm right and all of science is totally corrupted by a world wide conspiracy."

It seems everyone hates science when it doesn't promote their desires.

 

Of course not, because, "every scientist across the world (who has reviewed miscellaneous UFO sightings)," does not disbelieve in this likelihood. However, I would note, that the VAST majority of scientists-- despite the magnitude of this reality, should it be proven, dwarfing just about anything else-- have never looked, at all, into UFO sightings. That is because they either are brainwashed on this issue, by the general societal disposition, or they fear the reaction of their scientific peers, who have accepted popular opinion, over actual, scientific study. BTW, just a light review, of "miscellaneous," materials, does not, a serious scientific inquiry, make. Of the miniscule percentage of undaunted scientists, however, that have undertaken to actually study this phenomenon, I would wager that the majority have found it credible.


**But, as you do not take this conversation seriously, or even use rudimentary politeness in discussing it, unable to resist the pull of non-fact based ideas-- in supreme irony-- preferring to try to mock me, using biased stereotypes, not based on any evidence of my perspective, than to enjoin a sincere, intellectual discussion of the matter, I have given your reply, already, more of my time than it deserved.

 

Think of the universe as all of the beaches on the planet and you want to find a specific grain of sand but it takes you 87 years to travel to each grain of sand. There's no way in a thousand lifetimes you never be able to find it and that's the minimum for interstellar travel. Even if we could warp space time our species would probably be extinct before we found anything.

 

Funny, you did the exact same thing as did Old Man On Fire; that is, you failed miserably at interpreting a simple & straightforward idea, in deference to a non-factual storyline, of which you have, apparently, convinced yourself-- also, unfortunately, a "common meme." This is what I wrote, and you quoted:

"Yeah, no foolin'. And I believe they are being bent, by social pressures, into ignoring one of the most important scientific phenomenon ever."


WTF does peer pressure, and the herd-effect, have to do with a, "world wide Conspiracy?" Are you not aware that this psychological dynamic has been well proven, scientifically? In experiments conducted at universities, they have performed experiments with volunteer panels, for example. But these groups were actually made up of 3 members who were part of the research team, so were in on the experiment, which was really only being performed on the one, true volunteer. This person was placed last in line, in the group. Then they would be given multiple-choice questions, the answers of each, was obvious. Yet the first 3 would all choose the manifestly wrong answer (which the person running the experiment would receive supportively). When it came to the last person, he was more likely to choose the blatantly wrong answer, that agreed with everyone else's, than to contradict the entire group. Why don't you learn a little something about group psychology, before you try to critique someone else's citing of its well-established truths?


I think it seems like you, who has the grand, albeit fanciful, self-deceived image, of believing you know better than others, because of your implicit trust-- read: blind, thoughtless acceptance-- of whatever the mainstream science folks are saying.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

Do you disagree with that preceding paragraph? Well, if so, you may be interested to know that it is actually a quote,
from Albert Einstein.

 

Space on Star Trek and other sci fi is empty.

Real space has stuff floating around, small asteroids, planet centered systems we cannot see, heck, Pluto has 5 moons....

A star ship going speed of light or faster hits a marble sized rock in space. What happens?

No more star ship....

 

All I've stated is that for a hypothesis as stupendous as "alien life visiting Earth" there needs to be serious evidence.

And, I've pointed out that those excited by UFOlogy generally continue to promote totally debunked events as if they are evidence.

That's a fine quote you have there. But, it is the "mediocre minds" who are accepting crap as evidence in order to support fabulous beliefs that appeal to them REGARDLESS of evidence.

 

You are backpedalling. My comments had NOTHING TO DO with your very old, & not particularly controversial or objectionable stance (actually a rephrasing of Carl Sagan's line), on evidence. I was confronting the fallacy you depicted, that I am speaking like an irrational person-- rather than just someone with a differing opinion-- and suggesting, "a world wide (scientific) conspiracy."

WillReadmore said: ↑
That's a common meme: "I'm right and all of science is totally corrupted by a world wide conspiracy..."


So, either defend your allegations about me, or have the decency to apologize..... hey, it's not rocket science.

Your own impression of what is generally true, would only have any relevance if we were discussing the, "average UFO conspiracy theorist," which, FYI, we are not and have not, at all. Our discussion has strictly revolved around my own and your perspectives; our own personal views. And I hope you are not going to debase your integrity, by trying to claim that your hyperbolic remarks, about a person thinking that, "I'm right and ALL of science is TOTALLY corrupted by a WORLD WIDE CONSPIRACY," were not intended to apply to me, and falsely paint me as being a kook.

Again, I point to the irony of it being you, in this situation, who is distorting facts to represent a false narrative of our conversation; are you unable to grasp that this ill-serves your argument, that your narrative for the UFO phenomenon, is more fact-based and realistic, than my own?

And you have, for this post, a perfect record: your 3rd claim is also, 100% cow pie. Einstein was directing his comment towards people in the scientific community, who lacked the imagination to see beyond conventional views. It is quite clear from the quote's words that Einstein is not referring to conspiracy theorists, but to lackluster INSTITUTIONALISTS, who just blindly toe the, "party line." Does that description remind you of anyone?

See if you can remove your own, limiting prejudices, to be able to read and interpret the words as they actually ARE, this time:

"...The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."


Tell me that you can fathom that the ones in the quote who cannot understand a person who doesn't, "bow blindly to conventional prejudices," are obviously people who, themselves, do bow to the popular thinking on any subject, and that this could not possibly be a description of those UFOlogists who are still largely regarded as nut cases, even by the public, to say nothing of by the respectable scientific community. In fact, those same, that your remarks betray you indiscriminately deem as uniformly, "accepting crap as evidence in order to support fabulous beliefs," could, in some cases, bear a striking resemblance to the type of scientist that Einstein was lauding, no doubt considering himself among their number, who, instead of just going along with the conventional crowd, "expresses his opinions courageously and honestly."

 

That objection was clearly and intentionally directed at the entire world of UFOlogy. I sincerely hope you are NOT in that population.

My comments mainly pertained to what is evidence.

That was central to what I said about the Navy tapes, for example.

I'm not impugning anyone's honesty.

And, I hope you are not suggesting that I am an institutionalist who blindly toes the party line.

It sounds like you believe that those who have debunked the claims about the Navy tapes and claims about other reports are "bowing to the popular thinking on any subject."

That is a serious charge that you absolutely can NOT support. You need to be more careful with your charges of what can only be described as calling these people liars.

 

Evasion. I don't care about what your comments MAINLY pertained to, but what your one specific comment which I quoted and commented on, was meant to imply.

I will interject, here, my apology to other readers, for all the editing tools I will be using, but my correspondent has shown a special penchant for missing the point, so I am going to direct as many arrows to it as possible.

Now, to deal with your evasive answer, above. This is my post, that YOU QUOTED:
DEFinning said: ↑
And you thought I, or anyone, was unaware of this?

Yeah, no foolin'. And I believe they <mainstream scientists> are being bent, by social pressures, into ignoring one of the most important scientific phenomenon ever <the presence of alien crafts, in our skies, & our oceans>.

This was your REPLY:

If this is only meant, as you now are claiming, to refer to the UFO community, in general, and not to ME, in particular, I ask the reasonable question, as to what it has to do with my post, that you were addressing?

And BTW, the clear indication, would be that you were casting these aspersions towards the person who had just explained his own view, despite your erroneous defense:

I am tired, so l will address the rest of your reply, in a subsequent post.

 

Simply the existence of a life form that is not of Earthly origin would be a stupendous find, regardless of its capability.

I don't believe the search for life is predicated on the possibility of finding sentient beings that can give us answers or travel here by defying everything we know about physics, or whatever.

My understanding is that the James Webb telescope due to launch in December will have the ability to get a clean single pixel of light from distant planets - meaning that we can start examining the atmospheres of exoplanets!

 

Nothing happens to the starship, just as nothing happens to the UFOs that plunge into water or fly thru mountains. The craft is obviously immune to external gravity/inertia/mass else it couldn't do the otherwise impossible maneuvers that have been observed. With the ability to alter space-time, distance becomes irrelevant, a principle that science recognizes in a limited way in the form of nonlocality per quantum physics.

 

I see, so we can see them/detect them (some times) with radar etc and of course record them on video but they don't 'react' with normal matter.

So what exactly is the light/lidar/radar reflections etc we detect and record 'bouncing' off when they hit a UFO? Because if it doesn't interact with normal matter there is nothing for those signals to reflect off.

 

The concept isn't about not interacting with normal matter. The craft has its own space-time gravity zone within. Some kind of magnetic force field around the craft nullifies the effects of matter in its immediate surroundings. UFOs popping up out of water have no water dripping off of them. Yet they can do what we perceive as materializing/dematerializing when they shift between visible and invisible states, and between detectable and undetectable by radar, perhaps involving interdimensional manipulation.

Objects separated by distance in ordinary space-time can be considered separated only by time. Einstein said there is no such thing as space. If you can manipulate the time factor, then you can reposition to any desired location regardless of light-years distance.

As a side note, science knows that a certain percentage range of quarks are popping in and out of existence. Who knows where they are going?

Bruce Cathie theorized reality as an alternating pulse between matter and antimatter. That would seem to answer the question, why/how is it that our reality favors the survival and preponderance of matter if matter and antimatter are created in equal amounts?

Rudolph Steiner said that the entire universe is being created, destroyed, and recreated continuously for every miniscule amount of time.

Tom Campbell said the same sort of thing occurs from one microsecond to the next.

 

Calling these ideas "theory" is giving them WAY too much credit.

I especially like the line "Tom Campbell Physicist" got in wiki:

"A former NASA physicist, Tom worked as a large complex systems analyst by day and collected evidential information in the larger consciousness system by night."

I think your guys are pretty well qualified to continue writing fantasy fiction.
But, answers to what happens when a rock and a spacecraft collide at relativistic speed? You should look elsewhere.