Confessions of An Alien Hunter

Good Day Forumerions,

This just in from John McFeely of the National Geographic Society:

National Geographic along with SETI is releasing a new book celebrating SETI's 25th anniversary, Confessions of an Alien Hunter. The book written by SETI's Senior Astronomer Seth Shostak offers an entertaining and expert account on the facts, fantasies, and future of finding intelligence elsewhere in the universe.

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Frank Warren]

I knew the Transformers were really out there! I knew it! Where are you guys? You were supposed to come and get me years ago.

Seth Shostak...

I suspect this guy, if he ever did find an alien, would dig a hole and bury it in there. He has a vested interest in searching for aliens, but actually finding one is terrible for business.

I think the new age crowd have a better chance of producing actual aliens than SETI. But I would love to be proved wrong!

Good Day Zepherian!

Originally posted by Zepherian
Seth Shostak...

I suspect this guy, if he ever did find an alien, would dig a hole and bury it in there. He has a vested interest in searching for aliens, but actually finding one is terrible for business.

I think the new age crowd have a better chance of producing actual aliens than SETI. But I would love to be proved wrong!

I see Seth as a victim of "cognitive bias" that has been inflicted upon him through "societal programming." He often condemns evidence he hasn't bothered to analyze. (This is analogous is criticizing a book one hasn't read).

That said, I certainly give him more street cred then any New Agers . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Seth is a product of this time and age, he probably dosen't even realise his own bias in the whole alien life argument. He, virtue of his training, sees himself as an authority on the subject. But it was really training, not actual learning... his authority would vanish if an actual alien craft landed by the SETI antennas.

Most new agers are the same way, usually without any actual education or valid gnostics, so I can understand your position regarding them. My own personal experiences suggest to me that a few of them could be legitimate though, so the use of the word "any" might be excessive there Mr Warren.

Cheers.

The attitude of UFO believers towards SETI/METI puzzles me. It is counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and hypocritical. Many are just as ignorant of SETI as many SETI scientists are of ufology, and just as arrogant.

That little rant aside, one of the best books one can read on the subject of Astrobiology is Lonely Planets by David Grinspoon, who makes a case for a galaxy teeming with life, and shows how the "lone Earth" theory was a distinct 20th century phenomenon.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

UFO is not a religion, I am not a believer. When you see something you can't identify it's a UFO, it's not theological, it's a mix of physics and ignorance. The atitude towards SETI is based on what I see as false scientific paradigms (lightspeed limit, radiowave communications, bla bla bla) and the whole thing being more of a diversion than an honest effort to find aliens, which I do suspect are here already, and probably have always been around.

SETI is, possibly, an attempt to keep people unaware of the actual mechanics of alien contact so as to keep them in a state of ignorance and through ignorance, servitude. This is also not a religion, just a hypothesis.

I don't really know, I'm not a contactee, but I have gone so far as to try telepathic and meditation based contact and to actually see a couple of UFO's in the sky, and that I can tell you is a shock. Maybe someday I'll go through with the experience and ask them to land...

Originally posted by Zepherian
When you see something you can't identify it's a UFO, it's not theological, it's a mix of physics and ignorance.

It's not physics, or ignorance. Well, ignorance
might apply.

UFO= Unidentified Flying Object.

Since we don't know what it is flying, we ARE
ignorant.

You are correct, it's NOT theological. Unless you
start looking at religeous paintings that have
UFO's in the background.

As far as physics, unless we can identify the craft,
how can we know the physics ?

So, in a 'round about way, you acknowledge UFO's
as fact ?

TW

Originally posted by catseyequeen
I knew the Transformers were really out there! I knew it! Where are you guys? You were supposed to come and get me years ago.

Why waste our time with this post? Please stay on topic, and don't ridicule the poster.
-E-

Good Day Zepherian!

Originally posted by Zepherian
Seth is a product of this time and age, he probably dosen't even realise his own bias in the whole alien life argument. He, virtue of his training, sees himself as an authority on the subject. But it was really training, not actual learning... his authority would vanish if an actual alien craft landed by the SETI antennas.

Cognitive bias is timeless, it's akin to what could be called "flat earth syndrome." I do agree that Seth isn't aware of his own bias, as is the case with most academics and or trained scientists.

For example; many mainstream scientists often pose the "we can't get there from here" argument to debunk the notion of visitation by ET . . . this as if ET is somehow stuck at our same level of technological advancement.

Most new agers are the same way, usually without any actual education or valid gnostics, so I can understand your position regarding them. My own personal experiences suggest to me that a few of them could be legitimate though, so the use of the word "any" might be excessive there Mr Warren.

Cheers.

I suppose the crux of the matter would depend on the definition of "New age-ism"; which to me is a matter of ideologies geared toward "faith and belief" rather then facts or theorems derived or posed by scientific methodology.

Cheers,
Frank

Mornin' SC,

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
The attitude of UFO believers towards SETI/METI puzzles me. It is counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and hypocritical. Many are just as ignorant of SETI as many SETI scientists are of ufology, and just as arrogant.

First the term UFO believers is nonsensical; UFOs are a fact of life; the term was borne by Air Force in 1952 to label the objects that were flying around our airspace, (and the world) which were previously called "Flying Saucers" and or "Discs."

In this instance, my criticism is directed towards Seth; however, I do in fact have the same complaints about SETI in general. I believe it's possible given the vastness of the cosmos that from a mathematical standpoint there could be another "humanoid civilization" similar to us sociologically, and that have followed the same path from a technological standpoint, and that is at the same level as we are at the moment; however, I feel that one would have better odds at winning the lotto then finding that civilization by the means SETI is employing. All this while shedding scientific methodology and ignoring evidence at hand, re ETH pertaining to some UFO reports.

That little rant aside, one of the best books one can read on the subject of Astrobiology is Lonely Planets by David Grinspoon, who makes a case for a galaxy teeming with life, and shows how the "lone Earth" theory was a distinct 20th century phenomenon.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

I share your sentiment re Grinspoon's book.

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
First the term UFO believers is nonsensical...

Semantics, Mr. Warren. Semantics.

Originally posted by Frank Warren
however, I feel that one would have better odds at winning the lotto then finding that civilization by the means SETI is employing...

SETI is fettered by what the current level of human technology is. As we become more advanced, so will SETI's techniques and means.

As for the lottery analogy, one could say the same thing about an alien species finding us among the billions upon billions of stars.

SC,

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Frank Warren
First the term UFO believers is nonsensical...

Semantics, Mr. Warren. Semantics.

Au contraire mon ami! This is not semantics at all; in fact it's representative of a problem that exists within Ufology. Erroneously inserting the verb believe, or the noun believers suggests that the subject matter is faith based or in question-it is neither!

UFOs are real, they exist-that's a fact! "That debate" was over 60 years ago; the argument is their origin, and it's important to make the distinction, particularly to the less informed.

Originally posted by Frank Warren
however, I feel that one would have better odds at winning the lotto then finding that civilization by the means SETI is employing...

SETI is fettered by what the current level of human technology is. As we become more advanced, so will SETI's techniques and means.

As for the lottery analogy, one could say the same thing about an alien species finding us among the billions upon billions of stars.

I respect SETI's right to proceed with their research as they see fit (regardless of how fruitless I feel the effort is); however, since their credo is the "search for extraterrestrial life," I find great irony in that they condemn Ufology (in general) without analyzing the evidence . . . all this under the guise of "science!"

Conversely, I would argue that a significantly more advanced civilization would have better odds at "finding find us," then we them at our current stage of technological advancement.

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I think one reason that SETI is dismissed is because they are looking for that proverbial needle in a haystack. It is like they are using an old AM radio to pick up a satellite radio signal.

They are also pointing the "ears" towards just the Sol type suns. It has been suggested by some astronomers that red dwarfs would be perfect for planets. They are stable and they last for billions of years. The planets would have to be closer, but if life developed, it would thrive.

I just get upset when Dr Shostak goes on the talk show circuit as a total skeptic. He should be open to some of the ideas out there.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
They are also pointing the "ears" towards just the Sol type suns...

This is true, but it is better to concentrate on stars we know are capable of supporting life (for obvious reasons) rather those stars that we aren't sure can support life.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
I just get upset when Dr Shostak goes on the talk show circuit as a total skeptic. He should be open to some of the ideas out there.

To be honest, I have to agree with Mr. Warren and you on this, Bart. To a certain extent. It is a great disservice to skepticism and the truth when people such as Shostak and Nye speak about UFO cases they have no familiarity with. It would be much better to say, "I am not familiar with that case and won't talk about it."

Originally posted by Frank Warren
UFOs are real, they exist-that's a fact! "That debate" was over 60 years ago; the argument is their origin, and it's important to make the distinction, particularly to the less informed.

You will get no argument from me on that. However, words often have meanings beyond a strict dictionary-definition. The term "UFO" carries a weight beyond that of it's acronym.

And anyone here is not the "less-informed" I would argue.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I will have to agree with you, as there are billions of stars to choose from. The theories are changing every day, so what was once thought as impossible is turning into reality. They have found exoplanets around all kinds of stars that were once thought to not be able to have planets. I think concentrating on the neighborhood is the best idea, but they should use a variety of signals to listen for.