E.T. don`t want us to know the truth and have advanced technology

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess the question is why hide? If they are all powerful there is no reason to hide and they could have walked among us as Gods for 50,000 years.

The question is if they are that powerful, and they want to remain hidden, how do people spot them with a $5 camera?

Completely illogical.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The question is if they are that powerful, and they want to remain hidden, how do people spot them with a $5 camera?

Completely illogical.

The lowest bidder issue?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The only planet we know of with life of any kind is Earth. That is the direct evidence against it.

Fair enough...but again, what do we really know? I wouldn say that`s a direct evidence against it because there is so much more to be confirmed or denied out there. E.g. you have 2 balls, one in the light, one in the dark and the one in the light you can see is an apple. So how can you say or prove that the other is not apple if you can`t see what it is? I hope you see my point here. You can`t prove either so this is not a real evidence, it`s more like evidence based on lack of information...

Also another thing to consider is intelligent life beyond our understanding that is not carbon based and need this type of living conditions.

Jupiter Ascending.... That's why you posted. Millions of threads have been generated since the Matrix movies released.

I think a far better explanation than your own is:
1) ET's don't want to attract our attention or contact us openly, so operate cautiously--not perfectly
2) ET's occasionally--though rarely--observe us and are caught in the act
3) Our government is also actively attempting to keep it quiet--I do not offer an explanation
4) The number of genuine encounters is so low the "coverup"--hesitate to call it that---actually succeeds
5) it's implicit if ET's have been here that space travel is by far easier than presently thought or civilizations tend to last long and/or be numerous

I could add a few other things necessary to make it plausible--like some instinctive anthropocentrism. Overall, it's just a wild guess. It's a bit silly to turn to the ET explation, since 95% or more of sightings are easily dismissed. Given humans presently believe in many different Gods and entertain illogical irrational convictions, it's a better alternative to simply suggests humans are lunatics and there's no ET out there yet.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The only planet we know of with life of any kind is Earth. That is the direct evidence against it.

Fair enough...but again, what do we really know? I wouldn say that`s a direct evidence against it because there is so much more to be confirmed or denied out there. E.g. you have 2 balls, one in the light, one in the dark and the one in the light you can see is an apple. So how can you say or prove that the other is not apple if you can`t see what it is? I hope you see my point here. You can`t prove either so this is not a real evidence, it`s more like evidence based on lack of information...

Also another thing to consider is intelligent life beyond our understanding that is not carbon based and need this type of living conditions.

This is a better analogy. There is an apple in the light, it's the only apple that can be seen. There are lots of lights far off in the distance. What evidence is there that there is an apple in any other lighted location?

a reply to: jonnywhite

I know there are other far more reasonable explanations but I wanted to discuss this one in particular as I have mentioned it in the OP and yes it`s a wild guess but again I only wanted to point out that it would be perfect setup for the aliens if this is indeed true because just look at where this discussion is going. I mean who would have even thought of this to be true...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Haha, ok what evidence is there that there isn`t an apple in other lighted locations? I mean all we see are reflections. If you can prove from looking at shadows trillions of miles away that there isn`t an apple there and it happens that you are right on multiple attempts, then I`ll be the first to follow your lead. Until then I will just have to agree to disagree on our perspectives.

Even this new method is not possible atm as I quote from the article:

But at the moment, there is no telescope capable of picking out an exoplanet from the light of its star, which is much brighter.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Haha, ok what evidence is there that there isn`t an apple in other lighted locations?

The difference is you said it's a definite guarantee there were apples. I said that's false. I make no claim either way, other than to say there is no evidence for any other apple. You made a claim there definitely are, it's a guarantee. My point is not that there are not apples, it's that claiming there are is equally invalid as claiming there are not, in fact more so, because the evidence we have supports only one apple. It would still be very stupid to claim there are not, "guaranteed".

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The difference is you said it's a definite guarantee there were apples. I said that's false. I make no claim either way, other than to say there is no evidence for any other apple. You made a claim there definitely are, it's a guarantee. My point is not that there are not apples, it's that claiming there are is equally invalid as claiming there are not, in fact more so, because the evidence we have supports only one apple. It would still be very stupid to claim there are not, "guaranteed".

Why are you trying to twist my words? I said there is a high probablity, not definite guarantee, that there are plenty of apples out there, based on what we know so far. Even if you go look to my OP I said this is based on possibility and probability. You tried to present evidence against my claim that the chances are higher(for planets in habitable zone to be able to sustain life) than against it...but now realised that what I`m saying is actually possible or even probable, having changed your stance from "direct evidence against it" to "equal chances with the inclination to go against the possibility"

Not trying to be rude or anything and agree with some points you made but as I have already said...our perspectives are different or at least were different because I think you get it now, at least what I have been trying to say.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d

Why are you trying to twist my words? I said there is a high probablity, not definite guarantee

Because of this ....

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
I mean recent discoveries have shown that planets in habitable zone around stars are quite common and some of these planets could sustain water and there is a high probability that they do and these circumstances would definitely guarantee life, perhaps even intelligent life.

Those circumstances do not definitely guarantee life. You said definitely guarantee. Your words. If every world is exactly like Earth there is no definite guarantee, poor choice of words on your part.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

lol, it happens that you are right holding me for that line all along Poor choice of words on my part like you said. My bad, but I know that you know what I really meant in our further discussion.

Anyway, I still think that the chances are higher for it than against it, simply because of the limitles number of stars out there containing this type of planets. I know there is no evidence to support this idea yet but hopefully in near future there will be more knowledge at our disposal.