Well this changes Everything!

reply to post by zorgon

No need. We already have one.

Originally posted by Phage
There is still no absolute proof of water. There are other possible explanations for the data but water is very high on the list. In any case, there are not vast quantities of water and it is not likely to be in a liquid state. If it is not bound in hydrated minerals it is frozen.

Meh... that is a round about way of saying 'is only rocks'

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Could you provide me with a link that shows someone stating that there is no water on the moon or anywhere else in the universe? If not then stop your ignorance. In fact, you will only find a tiny percentage of sceptics telling you there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe you need to re-learn your understanding of what sceptism is?

All you need to do is look up the threads from around 2005-2006... you will find plenty. When I have some time tomorrow I will hunt them down and post them on my website so I have them at my finger tips

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


your making a leap there from a civ being type 1 and being able to traverse interstellar space. The scale reflects how much energy a civ can harness. Not whether they are able to attain ftl travel, acheive immortality or turn wood into gold.

Your also making assumptions that advanced ETI want to travel here. I dont think we can assume anything about the behaviour of ETIs if they exist.



[edit on 26-9-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by Lasheic


And also a reply to skeptical ed, and Yeti101...

Please re-read my original post.

I'm only talking about what is possible, and what bugged me was directly pinned to
'self proclaimed skeptics' who do not demonstrate a skeptical mindset, who deny the POSSIBILITY.

I do feel that our current scientific model of the universe predicts life, a priori.

I also feel that the majority of scientists, is Aliens did land on the white house lawn for a CNN interview... would say 'Yep, our model of the universe has predicted this possibility for a long time now...'

The age of the universe is enough for there to be many type 3 civs out there, I was just outlining the explanation using type 1.

And while I respect Michio Kaku's work very much, I don't think he ever rules out the possibility for an intelligent race achieving type 1. He outlines the danger of that particular knowledge threshold, but he makes no proclamations that it's an impossible barrier to overcome.

I really wonder about people who can't make the connection that every star you see in the night sky (and the trillions that you cannot see) are actually suns in a star system, with a planetary system orbiting them, containing probably multiple worlds.

I also wonder why people refuse to include the few cases where we have evidence of an object behaving in ways that human technology was simply incapable of at the time...

While I absolutely agree that the evidence in these cases has yet to produce an actual alien, surely these investigations are relevant, when discussing the available evidence.

I'm currently involved in researching a case where an unidentified flying object was tracked on radar, and then had several anti-aircraft batteries open up on it for 10minutes, expending approximately 246 shells, before the reported object drifted out to sea over long beach, never to be seen again...

I wonder how an event like that can be left out of a conversation regarding the evidence for non-human technology present within documented human history...

I don't as a responsible researcher, and as a skeptic looking for (according to Occam's Razor) the simplest solution that fits with the observable evidence, believe that such an event can be ignored.

I don't feel that the evidence in that case (not to mention in the 'Trace Evidence' thread that Redwoodjedi often links (and is summarily ignored) have been explained through terrestrial means.

But my main point, is the not only is intelligent ET LIKELY in existence on some other worlds than Earth, according to our current model of the universe, and the predictions that this model makes, but the possibility that such life has visited other Earthlike worlds (not necessarily including or excluding our own world...) also exists.

The possibility exists.

That's my only point.

I don't like it when I see those claiming to be skeptics eliminate the possibility for absolutely no reason, without any evidence whatsoever, save vague guesses that 'nobody could be that advanced'.

The possibility exists. And it's not a 'crazy' possibility.

The support structure for such species is in place within our universe (because we know that the universe has been around long enough for such species to exist, and that other Earthlike worlds likely exist around other stars...) exists. The theory is not 'crazy'.

That's all I'm saying here. I hope that the three of you are in agreement with that, however I'm not here to try to change your belief system.

It seems that to me (and Frank Drake, Michio Kaku, Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, Tom Van Flandern, etc.) that the current model of the universe allows for this possibility, and even tends to predict the eventuality a priori.

Making A Priori predictions is valid science, and judging the A Priori prediction before it can be accurately tested would be drawing a premature conclusion with no evidence to support the conclusion.

This is not the mindset of a true skeptic, in my view. A true skeptic would acknowledge the possibility, and would include the possibility within his/her theories until further evidence emerges to either support or refute that hypothesis.

In several cases I've been a part of investigating here at ATS, I've run across self proclaimed 'skeptics' who do not display true skepticism, in the sense I've outlined above...

What is possible is possible, and anyone claiming to be a skeptic should include all possibilities within their realm of perception in their analysis, weighing each possibility against the evidence in that case. The simplest hypothesis that fits the observable evidence should be considered the current leading theory.

The BOLA case is merely one such example. These cases exist, and are currently 'unexplained' or 'unknown'.

As I've stated several times before 'unknown' is a state of being, it is not an answer. Therefore 'unknown' is not a validly testable hypothesis.

Unknown is the STARTING point of the scientific method, not the end result.

When we arrive at an 'unknown' conclusion, we as skeptics are obligated to make our best guess, and to continue to test that guess against the evidence. That's what being a skeptic is all about!

-WFA