It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are ETs that stupid?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthDweller

Oh no, not the Drake!


I think the drake equation is intrisically incompetent, even though reality MAY correlate with its approximations. Mind you all, that the Drake equation is a product of purely aetheistic, material extrapolations. extrapolations from ONE point of referance(life on earth), It makes its assumptions from a standpoint of Dawinian, RANDOM processes. Of course, this may fit perfectly into your paradigm, but i just had to speak my mind about that.


Well, we don't really know exactly how incompetent the Drake is.


Be fair, it's a brave attempt, with pretty much no prior knowledge, to quantify the probability of something that occurred here we know not how!

Darwinism has its shortcomings, I'm sure, but there isn't anything else you could use to make an equation, is there?




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 


Hey Tayga,

My personal preference with this issue is not to assume much of anything about the source of UFOs. But more generally, when I am hypothesizing about the possibility of them being something not from Earth, I usually dump assumptions such as the Drake Equation and "anthrocentric" arguments.

A hypothesis of an alien UFO has to start with the assumption that these things are utterly alien. So how can we assess their reality based on the anthropology of our own motivations? Stealth technology, in my opinion, assumes qualities such as strategic thinking and game-theoretic action over time, qualities of Earth Animals. But not necessarily of something from elsewhere.

But even so, I can still come up with reasonable, if fanciful, explanations that DO observe rules of our own animal planet. I might hypothesize, for example, that these UFOs are giant space fireflies that come down into planetary atmospheres to look for mates. They are stealthy most of the time to avoid being predated, and turn on the lights to try to attract mates. This is a scenario that many animals face on earth. They must constantly try to choose between stealth and making themselves very detectable. Like a cricket with its high pitch chirp, they will end up with something that is hard to lock onto but sufficiently specific to induce mating. No anthrocentric assumptions of 'immaculate stealth technology' are necessary for that model.

My point is not to justify the above hypothesis, but instead to point out that explanations of the 'observed behavior' of these stories need not be as cut and dry as "We wouldn't act this way, therefore they don't exist."

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
As Tayga points out, what if he was writing some form of creative writing or high on drugs?


Firstly, "creative writing or high on drugs"...now who is projecting modern life back on the past huh?


OK. Now I'm not saying any of the stuff on the page I'm linking here is gospel, OK? All I'm doing is throwing it into the mix. What it shows is a list of examples

UFO Past

Interesting stuff, don't you think? History is littered with this kind of anomaly. I can't say for sure what they refer to and I'm damned sure you can't either. Yes we can hypothesize and possibly take differing views but still... you have to wonder



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Thanks for that link nefermore! Could not think of a better piece of material!
I will surely give it a read-through right away



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial

A hypothesis of an alien UFO has to start with the assumption that these things are utterly alien.


Ah, but how alien? If we're going to attempt to understand something we have to try to fit it into a paradigm that we can at least imagine, surely? Do they need to need to obey any of the known laws of physics? If they don't show any characteristics of the universe as we know it, how can we distinguish them from hallucinations?


... qualities such as ... game-theoretic action over time, qualities of Earth Animals. But not necessarily of something from elsewhere.


Oh, we should knock heads on this some time. I believe that games are probably common to all sentient life in this universe.


But even so, I can still come up with reasonable, if fanciful, explanations that DO observe rules of our own animal planet.


Fine. As long as they are falsifiable.



My point is ... to point out that explanations of the 'observed behavior' of these stories need not be as cut and dry as "We wouldn't act this way, therefore they don't exist."


Sure, that would be pretty parochial. Discarding evidence on that basis would be throwing out the baby with bathwater. Far better to accept that some things are not yet understood.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I am completely familar with UFOlore. Everything back from the Cirlces of fire, and crosses, through to airships, the contactee movement then into the consipracy theory era and alien/MILAB. I have read sooooo many books and accounts on the subject. Unfortunatley I remain unconvinced that ETs have visited us at this time. While I agree some weird stuff has happened I am of the oppinion it is simple physical phenomena which we have yet to explain...

[edit on 24-1-2008 by timelike]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Some more thoughts...

To the people who say "Aliens are alien, they wouldn't think or look like us" I would put the following questions.

What use is earth to a life-form that breathes ammonia?

What if they come from a planet with a different gravity level to ours?

What if oxygen poisions them?

What if our planet is too hot, or too cold for them?

Logic - which I think that most people would agree is a fundamental faculty in order to create machinery advanced enough to create interstellar travel - dictates that life forms will seek out places that are suited to them, where it is relatively comfortable for them to exist and study.

Natural selection has decided that on this planet an upright bipedal form with the major sense organs relatively close to the brain and opposable thumbs is the mould for its most successful technological species, given the conditions at hand.

Now I'm not saying that their can't be variations in the pattern but I would suggest that the most interested life forms in this planet are likley to favour the same conditions as we do, and that those conditions favour our form. Is it too much of a stretch then to imagine that the majority of aliens coming here would share very similar physiology to ourselves?

Of course, there will be species who investigate for scientific purposes, and will bring their own life support with them, but they aren't likely to want to stay for extended periods if the environment is totally hostile to them. And before someone says "we're going to build a moonbase, so that arguments baloney", yes we are, but if we had the choice we'd rather go somewhere better, and the simple fact is that the technology to hand at the moment denies us that choice, wheras your average FTL capable alien wouldn't have to worry about that so much. Think of it aas having no car, in which case you walk to the nearest shop which takes you 15mins, or having a car in which case you can go to the shopping centre 20 miles away, which takes you the same amount of time.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Some more thoughts...

To the people who say "Aliens are alien, they wouldn't think or look like us" I would put the following questions.

What use is earth to a life-form that breathes ammonia?

What if they come from a planet with a different gravity level to ours?

What if oxygen poisions them?

What if our planet is too hot, or too cold for them?


On the other hand they may have mechanical bodies which they control by tractor beams. Then they'd possibly not be bothered by any of the physical parameters you mention.

Of course, you'd then have to wonder why they would want to visit a planet which could be the Galaxy's equivalent to Nowheresville, WY.

That said, our understanding doesn't define what's possible.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 


Until we can understand if life is a natural conclusion to solar system formation, we may never know. No Drake equation or guesswork really fills in the gap. At the moment we have only one example of a planet with life in the Universe. Until there is tangible proof and a demonstraion of alien biochemistry on another world, alas I fear I shall remain unconvinced by the visiting ETH.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
maybe they want to be seen. for what reasons... I don't know.

but i think the o'hare visit got the attention they wanted.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike

Until we can understand if life is a natural conclusion to solar system formation, we may never know. No Drake equation or guesswork really fills in the gap. At the moment we have only one example of a planet with life in the Universe.


OK. My final final word of support for Drake. You start with facts and then you formulate your theory which must contain assumptions that are either going to be upheld or refuted. I'm not even sure whether we've left first base with regard to finding the data to test the theory underlying Drake's ideas and some (possibly all) of its assumptions will be shown to be false in time, if we stick around that long.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 


Tayga, I wasn't knocking the Drake equation, I'm simply asking people to take it for what it is: a statistcal estimation based on what little we know about life in the Universe. I agree, you have to make a start somewhere, but we have to remember that many of the terms in the equation are simply unknowable at this time, the longevity of a civillization, fraction of planets with life so on. Even the slightly more familiar terms like the rate of star formation still have large upper and lower limits.

So, while we can play with statistical models in the end in order to gain any real facts about life in the Universe, we must find it and obtain real values for the terms in the Drake equation. Then it will be a good estimate.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by timelike]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
On Drake:

Not to mention that it relies on mechanical factors, more than the WILL of any species or for that matter Deity...

I find this evolutionary model quite disturbing, it really never makes any sense. I'm often boggled that many people who believe in the grays and other far-away humanoids - actually believe that they are the result of the same random evolution as here on Earth! I feel it is quite obvious that if natural selection on mechanical basis was our only "father" - the odds that any other species would turn out to actually LOOK like us are REALLY SLIM.

The "Star-Trek model" only makes sense if the humanoid form is imperative to higher forms of life. It would mean, to me, that the humanoid model is built-in to the universe itself.

The other model, that works to my liking, is that alien entities (of not necessarily physical form) uses greys and other "generic" bodies as a sort of robots or "suits" to be able to interact in 3-D, Earth reality. That is to say that they may be powerful in their domain, but on earth it's all about the physical if you really want to effectively make an impression on earthlings. This would explain their smooth and uniform look, as they would in effect have no process of long-time genetic mixage - they would be "brand new"



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I like the responses you guys have made. I think they are reasonable positions and very well thought out. They may very well be true.

But I still tend to fall on the side of wondering how limited life here might be in organization as compared to elsewhere.

I often imagine a significantly larger world around a red dwarf, with billions of extra years of plate tectonics and life, that has developed not only 'colony like' organisms, but 'colony like ecosystems'. Furthermore, maybe this life evolved in a genetic system with less rigid speciation and more recombinatorial genetic sharing as a mechanism, perhaps some kind of universal, trans-species spore sharing mechanism? What if, (even more oddly) this colony planet evolved its predator prey relationships into complex relationships more akin to symbioses of organs than arbitrary equilibrium of competing forces.

Maybe none of that could occur on a planet. But if it did, would it result in 'animals' with very different needs for higher intelligence? Perhaps opportunism more focused on distributed cooperation and coordination, and less on predation and scavenging in an open environment. If so, what would such a higher intelligence act like when if it ended up here? Such a thing would not only be an alien creature, it would be from an alien system with alien rules and alien requirements. What does the question "Are ETs that stupid?" even mean in that context?

I'm not concerned with the smart people here who think through this stuff. I worry about the posts I see on other news sites, such as the Main Stream Media's comment boards, where people state "Why would there be lights. It makes no sense, so it must not be ET." I don't like that argument. Even if in the end these things are terrestrial phenomena, human or otherwise.

So from my point of view, a universe of Star Trek like bumpy headed hominids is not necessarily what we would have. Perhaps you guys are right. Perhaps there is convergent processes everywhere, and hominidae is the basis for intelligence in the universe. I don't know.

But for my 2 cents, I like to keep my options open before I try to figure out the motivation of something that might be ET. Its just a philosophical position, I suppose.

Someday, I would like to be able to figure out if you folks are right. I wonder if some of the distinguished guests on this forum couldn't shed some light on this, if they weren't half-hamstrung by whatever holds them back from saying everything in public.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Oh! And what if... Instead of alien planets beeing breeding grounds for alien life-forms - Alien planets evolving into an intelligent form of astral body! Life is all about organizing from chaos to order. Before life could be sustained on planet Earth, the planet itself had to "evolve", right? So what if some astral bodies kept on evolving, organizing into what we would call life? These hypothetical beeings could play a role in a macro-scale ecology! But then again, galaxies could fit the bill, actually acting as if alive.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthDweller

The other model, that works to my liking, is that alien entities (of not necessarily physical form) uses greys and other "generic" bodies as a sort of robots or "suits" to be able to interact in 3-D, Earth reality...


I think that's a pretty attractive theory too. If you were non-physical and wanted to act in a physical environment, that could be one way to do it. If you weren't interested in sex, drugs, eating or physical sensation why would you body having a flesh body when a synthetic one would be so much easier to make and maintain



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
"...I think our militaries have more technological secrets and capabilities than we can even imagine.....we probably don't even want to know, right!?"

Let me quote Ben Rich who headed up Lockheed Skunk Works. Before his death he said "We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity" he also went on to say "anything you can imagine we already know how to do."

So from this quote, I guess you could believe that all UFOs are our own technology. I am not so quick to believe that's true. I still think some UFOs show signs of technology far beyond what humans could create now or even 200 years from now.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by ufo reality]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial

... maybe this life evolved in a genetic system with less rigid speciation and more recombinatorial genetic sharing as a mechanism, perhaps some kind of universal, trans-species spore sharing mechanism?


You can bet that Monsanto would have an easier time there than they do here! Recombinant, fast producing life forms synthesising proteins needed by larger, slower ones. Nice idea.


I'm not concerned with the smart people here who think through this stuff. I worry about the posts I see on other news sites, such as the Main Stream Media's comment boards, where people state "Why would there be lights. It makes no sense, so it must not be ET." I don't like that argument.


This attitude pervades every field of human interest, not just ETs and such. It's what happens when curiosity and the desire to find things out is replaced by fear, uncertainty and the will to assert a comfortable reality, even if it's not that real.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthDweller
Oh! And what if... Instead of alien planets beeing breeding grounds for alien life-forms - Alien planets evolving into an intelligent form of astral body!


You had me confused there for a while. Astral Body is a term usually associated with a spiritual take on the universe and refers to a spirit-like version of a physical body. Personally, I think it's a shame they decided to choose this term to describe it since the words would be better used to describe a star pretty much along your lines.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo reality
"...I think our militaries have more technological secrets and capabilities than we can even imagine.....we probably don't even want to know, right!?"

Let me quote Ben Rich who headed up Lockheed Skunk Works. Before his death he said "We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity" he also went on to say "anything you can imagine we already know how to do."

So from this quote, I guess you could believe that all UFOs are our own technology. I am not so quick to believe that's true. I still think some UFOs show signs of technology far beyond what humans could create now or even 200 years from now.


Ben Rich's statement pretty much sums up the impression I've had since reading Nick Cook's The Hunt For Zero Point. Cook cites Rich in the book which leads me to believe that at large percentage of substantial UFO reports could be due to black ops aircraft of advanced design. I doubt whether Rich had the measure of our imagination though


Predicting the advancement of technology is not a simple thing and I'd be surprised if it took 200 years to produce what we would expect to see in that time. I suppose it depends how cautious you are. I get the impression that the really fast-moving, out-there stuff tends to get done somewhere in Area 51 or similar. If it starts anywhere else, it eventually ends up under cover anyway, apparently.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join