DO You believe in ET? The OFFICIAL Consensus!

Probability that feature will fall in the required range

galaxy size .1
galaxy type .1
galaxy location .1
star location relative to galactic center .2
star distance from closest spiral arm .1
z-axis extremes of star's orbit .1
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption .01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption .01
number of stars in system .2
star birth date .2
star age .4
star metallicity .05
star orbital eccentricity .1
star's distance from galactic plane .1
star mass .001
star luminosity relative to speciation .0001
star color .4
3H+ production .1
supernovae rates and locations .01
white dwarf binary types, rates, and locations .01
planetary distance from star .001
inclination of planetary orbit .5
planetary axis tilt .3
rate of change of axial tilt .01
planetary rotation period .1
rate of change in planetary rotation period .05
planetary orbit eccentricity .3
surface gravity (escape velocity) .001
tidal force .1
magnetic field .01
albedo .1
density .1
planetary crust thickness .01
oceans-to-continents ratio .2
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio .1
global distribution of continents .3
frequency and extent of ice ages .1
asteroid and comet collision rate .1
change in asteroid and comet collision rates .1
mass of body colliding with primordial Earth .002
timing of collision with primordial Earth .05
rate of change in asteroid/comet collision rate .1
proximity and mass of Jupiter .01
major planet eccentricities .1
major planet orbital instabilities .1
drift rate and rate change of major planets .1
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric pressure .1
atmospheric electric discharge rate .1
atmospheric temperature gradient .01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .01
oxygen level in atmosphere .01
chlorine level in atmosphere .1
iron quantity in oceans .1
tropospheric ozone quantity .01
stratospheric ozone quantity .01
mesospheric ozone quantity .01
water vapor level in atmosphere .01
oxygen-to-nitrogen ratio in atmosphere .1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires .01
soil mineralization .1
quantity of sea-salt aerosols .1
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil .01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil .01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil .01
quantity of sulfur in soil .1
quantity of sulfur in planet's core .1
tectonic activity .1
volcanic activity .1
decline in volcanic activity .1
viscosity of Earth's core at core boundaries .01
biomass to comet-infall ratio .01
regularity of cometary infall .1
dependency factors (estimate) 100,000,000,000
longevity requirements (estimate)

Probability for combined occurrence of all 75 parameters = 10-99

Maximum possible number of planets in universe = 10


taken from here

www.godandscience.org...

reply to post by the illuminator


Here's a little more recent data for you, the information you posted is based on outdated sources going back as far as the early 70's. What I'm presenting is called the Drake Equation which is a much more modern model:

Best current estimates for the parameters of the Drake equation.

R* = the rate of star creation in our galaxy
Estimated by Drake as 10/year.
Latest calculations from NASA and the European Space Agency indicate that the current rate of star formation in our galaxy is about 7 per year.
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets. Estimated by Drake as 0.5.
It is now known from modern planet searches that at least 40% of sun-like stars have planets, and the true proportion may be much higher, since only planets considerably larger than Earth can be detected with current technology.
Infra-red surveys of dust discs around young stars imply that 20-60% of sun-like stars may form terrestrial planets

ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets. Estimated by Drake as 2.
The combination of this with fl=1 implies that two planets per star develop life, which not only assumes that our solar system is typical but that there is life on Mars. Marcy et al. note that most of the observed planets have very eccentric orbits, or orbit very close to the sun where the temperature is too high for earth-like life.
However, several planetary systems that look more solar-system-like are known, such as HD 70642, HD 154345, or Gliese 849. These may well have smaller, as yet unseen, earth-sized planets in their habitable zones. Also, the variety of solar systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and earth-sized planets -
it is now believed that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarves might have habitable zones, and some of the large planets detected so far could potentially support life.
in early 2008, two different research groups concluded that Gliese 581d may possibly be habitable. Since about 200 planetary systems are known, this implies ne > 0.005.
Lineweaver has also determined that about 10% of star systems in the Galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable themselves for sufficient time.

NASA's Kepler mission was launched on March 6, 2009. Unlike previous searches, it is sensitive to planets as small as Earth, and with orbital periods as long as a year. If successful, Kepler should provide a much better estimate of the number of planets per star that are found in the habitable zone.
Even if planets are in the habitable zone, however, the number of planets with the right proportion of elements may be difficult to estimate.
Also, the Rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare, has advanced a set of arguments based on the Drake equation that the number of planets or satellites that could support life is small, and quite possibly limited to Earth alone; in this case, the estimate of ne would be infinitesimal.

fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
Estimated by Drake as 1. In 2002, Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis (at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Astrobiology) estimated fl as > 0.13 on planets that have existed for at least one billion years using a statistical argument based on the length of time life took to evolve on Earth.

fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Estimated by Drake as 0.01 based on little or no evidence. This value remains particularly controversial. Pessimists such as Ernst Mayr point out that of the billions of species that have existed on Earth, only one has become intelligent and infer a tiny value for fi.
Optimists note the generally increasing complexity of life and conclude that the eventual appearance of intelligence might be inevitable, meaning fi=1.[16] Skeptics point out that the large spread of values in this term and others make all estimates unreliable.

fc = the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
Estimated by Drake as 0.01. There is considerable speculation why a civilization might exist but choose not to communicate, but there is no hard data.

L = the expected lifetime of such a civilization for the period that it can communicate across interstellar space
Estimated by Drake as 10,000 years.

In an article in Scientific American, Michael Shermer estimated L as 420 years, based on compiling the durations of sixty historical civilizations.[17] Using twenty-eight civilizations more recent than the Roman Empire he calculates a figure of 304 years for "modern" civilizations.
It could also be argued from Michael Shermer's results that the fall of most of these civilizations was followed by later civilizations that carried on the technologies, so it's doubtful that they are separate civilizations in the context of the Drake equation.
In the expanded version, including reappearance number, this lack of specificity in defining single civilizations doesn't matter for the end result, since such a civilization turnover could be described as an increase in the reappearance number rather than increase in L, stating that a civilization reappears in the form of the succeeding cultures.
Furthermore, since none could communicate over interstellar space, the method of comparing with historical civilizations could be regarded as invalid.

David Grinspoon has argued that once a civilization has developed it might overcome all threats to its survival. It will then last for an indefinite period of time, making the value for L potentially billions of years.
If this is the case, then the galaxy has been steadily accumulating advanced civilizations since it formed.[18]

Values based on the above estimates,
R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years
result in
N = 7 × 0.5 × 0.1 × 0.33 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10000 = 0.12


That's 12% over a 10,000 year period!!


[edit on 8-5-2010 by discl0sur3]

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by discl0sur3

 

i myself am not in the "belief" category...

its a matter of probability..

we exist next to a star..

there are a billion stars in our galaxy..

and a billion galaxies...

Hi Reeferman,
So you ARE in the belief category?? Couldn't quite understand what you were saying. Sorry.

THE TALLY SO FAR:

YES - 10=62.5%
NO - 3=18.75%
MAYBE - 3=18.75%

Do I believe in ET?

With today's tech so many hoaxes and fakes can be produced.
With today's people so many people are paranoid and have very powerful imaginations.

Do I believe in ET? Not until I shake the hand of one and we shoot the sh&* so I could eventually come to the conclusion that it is in fact an ET and not a delusion in my mind I am interacting with.

Perception is a very real thing, so we believe.

I definately believe theres ET`s or ancient ancestors and also that the universe is teaming with life.
S&F

Just out of curiosity what are these between 8-10 seconds? I cant make out what it is?
news.sky.com... 215628074?lpos=video_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=VIDEO_15628074_New_Ash_Cloud_Caused_By_Iceland_Volcano_Eruption_Closes_Air_Space_in_ Spain%3A_More_UK_Flight_Problems

Originally posted by discl0sur3
If you're a non-believer, please present your evidence and we'll discuss it.

That's a highly problematic statement. One cannot prove a negative.

I believe it is highly probable that there are other forms of life in the universe and that we should continue searching for it.

I know that to date, no evidence of life elsewhere has been discovered anywhere that we've looked. We also must face the possibility that we could be the first place life has emerged in the universe - some place has to be the first.

I do not believe that UFOs indicate alien life forms observing and interacting with us, or that governments are keeping alien secrets from us, or that countless hoardes of people get sucked up into spaceships to receive anal probes, or that grays and reptilians have a secret war happening, etc. Such nonsense is pseudo-religious in its nature and yet another way of anthropomorphising the universe.




[edit on 8-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Put me down as a yes!

The reason.....

There are between 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, all with the possibility of planets orbiting them. There are an estimated 500 billion galaxies in the universe. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million stars, up to giants with hundred trillion stars. That is a lot of stars with the possibility of planets orbiting them. To say we are the only intelligent life in the universe is extremely narrow minded, the chances are very, very small.

Originally posted by jazz10
I definately believe theres ET`s or ancient ancestors and also that the universe is teaming with life.
S&F

Just out of curiosity what are these between 8-10 seconds? I cant make out what it is?
news.sky.com... 215628074?lpos=video_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=VIDEO_15628074_New_Ash_Cloud_Caused_By_Iceland_Volcano_Eruption_Closes_Air_Space_in_ Spain%3A_More_UK_Flight_Problems

Hey Jazz!
I'll mark down your vote. The link you posted is broken, can you update please?

I have never seen a ufo nor have i ever been or claimed to have been abducted.

I do believe that there is intelligent life out there and I believe that they have been here in the past. I believe that they have been in contact with some of our worlds government factions, i also believe that the contact is still going on.

Here it is again
news.sky.com... /201005215628005?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15628005_Ash_Cloud%3A_Airports_Hampered_In_Spain%2C_Portugal_And _France_As_Volcano_Plume_Threatens_UK_And_Ireland

Hope that works 8-10 seconds outside the window?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by discl0sur3
If you're a non-believer, please present your evidence and we'll discuss it.

That's a highly problematic statement. One cannot prove a negative.

I believe it is highly probable that there are other forms of life in the universe and that we should continue searching for it.

I know that to date, no evidence of life elsewhere has been discovered anywhere that we've looked. We also must face the possibility that we could be the first place life has emerged in the universe - some place has to be the first.

I do not believe that UFOs indicate alien life forms observing and interacting with us, or that governments are keeping alien secrets from us, or that countless hoardes of people get sucked up into spaceships to receive anal probes, or that grays and reptilians have a secret war happening, etc. Such nonsense is pseudo-religious in its nature and yet another way of anthropomorphising the universe.




[edit on 8-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

That's a fair analogy, thank you for your comment.

May I offer the"Copernican revolution"? - it's the realization that humanity is not alone in the universe.
Just a couple of years ago, conventional astronomical wisdom held that the formation of life is such an unlikely event that humanity is almost certainly the only intelligent species in the universe. But with the recent discovery of extrasolar planetary systems, and the realization that life might exist or have existed elsewhere in our own solar system (on Mars and beneath the icy crust of Jupiter's moon Europa), the odds have dramatically shifted in favour of life.

The existence of life on Earth does not imply anything for the probability of life existing elsewhere, because if life did not exist on Earth, we would not exist to observe it (this observer effect is known as the anthropic principle). But if life arose independently on another body in our solar system, and planetary systems are the rule, not the exception, then life must be abundant in the universe. And that means that intelligent life could be abundant in the universe.

So why do many serious scientists reject the idea that aliens could be visiting the earth?
Because according to conventional wisdom, interstellar travel is simply not feasible. However, the same thing was said about flying in the 19th century, and nuclear power was declared impossible just a few years before it became a reality. History teaches us that when physicists complacently lean back and declare such-and-such to be an impossibility, a major revolution might be right around the corner.

Today, two such revolutions are in the making. The first is free energy. Quantum physics teaches us that the vacuum is far from being empty. On the contrary, it holds great amounts of energy - the so-called zero-point energy.

So far, it has been the prevailing orthodoxy in physics that this energy cannot be tapped. However, some physicists believe differently. Nuclear physicist Tom Bearden has designed a functioning prototype of a device he calls the Motionless Electomagnetic Generator that produces electrical energy from the vacuum. Bearden is currently looking for investors to develop and mass-produce the invention, which is proving to be a formidable obstacle, since major investment companies are not eager to develop a technology that could single-handedly destroy whole industries.

Once the MEG, or a similar device is commercially available, human civilization will be transformed virtually overnight. Providing clean energy in abundance, without fuel needs or exhausts, free energy devices will solve many of our most urgent global problems.
They will end the environmental destruction caused by cars, planes and fossil-fuel burning power plants.
They will provide developing countries with the energy to develop, but without the environmental and health penalties that the developed countries have paid, and are still paying.
And even more important: they will give us 'the freedom of the solar system'.

Our current space activities are held back by a lack of compact, but powerful energy sources. On the surface of the earth, we sit at tbe bottom of a deep gravity well, and it takes enormous amounts of energy to get things into orbit. Introduce abundant energy into the equation, and humanity will have the freedom of the solar system. Even interstellar travel would become a practical reality, for travel at relativistic speeds would no longer be energy-prohibitive. Still, such ships would be limited by the speed of light. Or would they?

Some physicists believe that it is possible to engineer space-time itself, to surround a spaceship with a local space time in such a way that locally, the light barrier remains intact, while from the outside, the ship is moving at superluminal velocity. This sounds exactly like Star Trek's warp drive, but that doesn't make it an invalid idea. In fact, NASA is taking this idea and others like it very seriously, as you can convince yourself by visiting NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program.

The bottom line is: for a highly advanced extraterrestrial culture, interstellar travel could be as trivial as an intercontinental flight for us. That is why sceptics will always take refuge to what seems to be a perfect refutation: if aliens exists, and interstellar travel is possible, why aren't they visiting us?
To fully appreciate the quality of this question, keep in mind that the standard sceptical argument against the reality of UFOs is that "the laws of physics exclude the possibility of interstellar travel, even if extraterrestrials existed in the first place, which is highly unlikely".

In other words, UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial because interstellar travel is impossible, and interstellar travel is impossible because otherwise, there would be UFOs of extraterrestrial origin.

Scientists should recognize the circuitous nature of this argument, but all too often, they do not. Science is not always the objective, impartial endeavour that it claims to be. The process of scientific truth-finding has a complex and subtle psychology to it, and social factors like authority, conditioning, majority opinion and prejudice play as much a role as observation and mathematical deduction.

cont...

Originally posted by illustro

There are between 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, all with the possibility of planets orbiting them. There are an estimated 500 billion galaxies in the universe. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million stars, up to giants with hundred trillion stars. That is a lot of stars with the possibility of planets orbiting them. To say we are the only intelligent life in the universe is extremely narrow minded, the chances are very, very small.

Are you sure the odds favor your assumption? The current conservative estimate on the number of stars in the universe is ten sextillion. We know of life existing on one planet in one star system. That gives us a ratio of 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Those aren't the kind of odds I'd bet on or anything.

Don't be alarmed though. As I said before I believe it's entirely plausible that life exists outside of earth and that we should continue searching for it.

Take the following example of scientific irrationality:

In the recent Scientific American special issue "The Future of Space Exploration", Timothy Ferris, a science writer and emeritus professor of journalism at UCB, makes a compelling case for interstellar exploration based on current technology. But then, he writes

"From the second clue - that aliens have not yet landed on the White House lawn - we can posit that our immediate celestial neighborhood is probably not home to a multitude of technologically advanced civilizations that spend their time boldly venturing to other star systems on board big, imposing spacecraft. If that was the case, they would have shown up already, as they evidently have not (I am, of course, discounting reports of UFO sightings and alien abductions, the evidence for which is unpersuasive.)"

The word 'unpersuasive' reveals that it is not logic and rational thinking that determines the merit of UFO sightings for Ferris, but mindset.
When one considers the sheer amount and consistency of UFO evidence, i.e. sightings from qualified observers including highly trained military pilots and radar operators, spanning over 5 decades, it seems bizarre how an educated, intelligent person could simply dismiss that accumulated mountain of evidence for UFOs as "unpersuasive" - unless said person is simply unaware of the evidence. And that is the crux of the UFO matter: the sceptical myth that there is "not a shred of evidence" (the contrary is true) is believed by many to be a fact.

I'm open minded and willing to entertain the believe that ET exists and is visiting this planet, but the most important thing to me is the truth and based on my own common sense and good reasoning I have yet to see any hard evidence or proof that Aliens are visiting this planet. There's only speculation & conjecture and plenty of suspect & dodgy youtube videos. However, there is a lot of credible people who have claimed to have had encounters with UFO's and ET's, just no hard physical proof, so I'm kind of sitting on the fence waiting for a UFO to fly overhead & land.

The word "believe" to me means that you wholeheartedly believe in UFO's, therefore because I haven't seen any proof myself, then I would have to say no.

Originally posted by discl0sur3
But if life arose independently on another body in our solar system, and planetary systems are the rule, not the exception, then life must be abundant in the universe. And that means that intelligent life could be abundant in the universe.

Excellent response, thank you.

I agree with the above quoted post, but, at this point we still cannot detect either extinct or extant life forms on any of our local planets. Should that magic moment come, the above statements should hold true

So why do many serious scientists reject the idea that aliens could be visiting the earth?
Because according to conventional wisdom, interstellar travel is simply not feasible.

I always believe that supposition was short sighted. Although by our known methods of travel interstellar travel is certainly not feasible, future discoveries could certainly allow for it.

That is why sceptics will always take refuge to what seems to be a perfect refutation: if aliens exists, and interstellar travel is possible, why aren't they visiting us?

Such an argument seems anthropocentric and a bit short sighted also. It would beg the question as to why such an advanced civilization would want to visit such a primitive and unevolved species.

In other words, UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial because interstellar travel is impossible, and interstellar travel is impossible because otherwise, there would be UFOs of extraterrestrial origin.

That is but one argument. There is also the strong likelihood that unexplained things seen in the sky have terrestrial origin: experimental aircraft or as-of-yet unexplained phenomena such as what are commonly known as "earth lights" (Brown Mtn. Lights, Hessdalen lights, etc). Another explanation is that perceptions have gone awry. Magicians have mastered the art of fooling the human eye and brain into seeing impossible things - so might nature be capable of the same.

Despite the logic that dictates there must be life elsewhere, the hard facts are that we have no solid, tangible evidence of such to date. Sightings of UFOs and accounts of abductions are a circuitous route around the unpleasant fact that we have no solid evidence of life elsewhere. As a true skeptic I do not deny that there is life elsewhere, but I do demand to be convinced of such with solid evidence.

Originally posted by discl0sur3

The word 'unpersuasive' reveals that it is not logic and rational thinking that determines the merit of UFO sightings for Ferris, but mindset.
When one considers the sheer amount and consistency of UFO evidence, i.e. sightings from qualified observers including highly trained military pilots and radar operators, spanning over 5 decades, it seems bizarre how an educated, intelligent person could simply dismiss that accumulated mountain of evidence for UFOs as "unpersuasive" - unless said person is simply unaware of the evidence. And that is the crux of the UFO matter: the sceptical myth that there is "not a shred of evidence" (the contrary is true) is believed by many to be a fact.

Here's where we have a problem. What exactly qualifies a UFO observer? We unquestioningly believe that a police officer or pilot has more expertise in the field of viewing UFOs because they have an assumed level of higher credibility. But, they are simply as human as the rest of us and no more qualified in the field of viewing UFOs than a janitor or ditch digger. They are just as subject to illusion and delusion as anybody else and the appeal to authority gives their accounts no higher validity to accept it as evidence. A preponderance of personal accounts, even from highly respected and credible persons, does not qualify as evidence of anything. If that is untrue then we also have tons of evidence for the existence of succubi and incubi from the countless accounts of credible and respected medieval witnesses.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well presented.
I think it's fair to say that your points are just as easily rationalized as mine. In the end it comes down to a matter of personal belief until further evidence presents itself I suppose...thanks for your comments.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by discl0sur3

The word 'unpersuasive' reveals that it is not logic and rational thinking that determines the merit of UFO sightings for Ferris, but mindset.
When one considers the sheer amount and consistency of UFO evidence, i.e. sightings from qualified observers including highly trained military pilots and radar operators, spanning over 5 decades, it seems bizarre how an educated, intelligent person could simply dismiss that accumulated mountain of evidence for UFOs as "unpersuasive" - unless said person is simply unaware of the evidence. And that is the crux of the UFO matter: the sceptical myth that there is "not a shred of evidence" (the contrary is true) is believed by many to be a fact.

Here's where we have a problem. What exactly qualifies a UFO observer? We unquestioningly believe that a police officer or pilot has more expertise in the field of viewing UFOs because they have an assumed level of higher credibility. But, they are simply as human as the rest of us and no more qualified in the field of viewing UFOs than a janitor or ditch digger. They are just as subject to illusion and delusion as anybody else and the appeal to authority gives their accounts no higher validity to accept it as evidence. A preponderance of personal accounts, even from highly respected and credible persons, does not qualify as evidence of anything. If that is untrue then we also have tons of evidence for the existence of succubi and incubi from the countless accounts of credible and respected medieval witnesses.

Fair statement, perhaps I should have elaborated. I believe the reports we receive from "credible" government witnesses have no doubt been diluted for the purpose of bring into question the character of the witness.
What would happen if someone came forward with ACTUAL physical evidence?

The result will be a radical change in the way we think of ourselves and our place in the big scheme of things - maybe too radical. It is at this point that any serious discussion of UFOs and Extraterrestrials cannot avoid delving into the subject of governmental coverups and suppression of evidence.

Let us first explore the reasons why there would be a coverup in the first place.

In 1938, the radio broadcast of Orson Wells' fictional play about an invasion from Mars caused a mass panic. Ten years later, the world population had not become significantly more sophisticated, and it had just gone through the horros of World War II.

In that atmosphere, the very last thing that was needed was a public announcement by the US government that advanced flying machines of unknown origins were routinely violating American airspace, and that the military was powerless to do anything about it.

The result of such an announcement would have been a breakdown of social order and a loss of trust in the governemnent. The authority of religion would have been eroded, possible to the extent of destroying it altogether, and science would have lost much of its credibility and appeal.

Such was at least the gist of the Brookings Report, a study prepared by the Brookings Institution for NASA in 1961 entitled "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs". The report suggested that if evidence of extraterrestrial life was uncovered, witholding it from the public should be considered.

But there was another good reason to keep the evidence for extraterrestrial life a secret: the chance for the American military to gain a technological edge over other nations by reverse-engineering and duplicating the alien technology.
If a UFO could be understood, and its technology reverse-engineered, the US military would gain a technological advantage so enormous that the threat of communism would become utterly insignificant.

For these two reasons, it is clear that any hard evidence of UFOs being extraterrestrial would automatically have become the highest classified military secret in all of history, and that the sceptical argument that such information would of course be immediately released to the public (implying that since such has evidently not been the case, no such information exists), is hopelessly naive and simplistic. No defense or intelligence agency would do such a thing, and nor would the supposedly civilian space agency NASA.

"The [NASA] Administrator shall establish such security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of the national security." Sec. 304. (a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (which established NASA)

On January 23, 1980, CAUS (citizens against UFO secrecy) filed a freedom of information lawsuit against the NSA (national security agency) for the release of UFO related documents.

The lawsuit was dismissed, but the NSA had to admit that it had such documents in its possession - first 79, then 135, then 239. In a top-secret affidavit (for which the judge himself had to obtain a temporary top-secret clearance), NSA representative Eugene F. Yeates told the court that the release of this material would seriously compromise the national security of the United States.

Two years later, CAUS asked for, and obtained, copies of the court records. Of the 21 pages of the NSA affidavit, 14 were completely blacked out. It was also learned at that time that the affidavit was classified top secret umbra, which is the highest level of classification for SIGINT (signals intelligence) documents.

Cases like this don't prove that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, but they prove that agencies of the US government know more than they let on, and that they are lying when they claim that they have no interest in UFOs.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by discl0sur3]

Originally posted by discl0sur3

Well presented.
I think it's fair to say that your points are just as easily rationalized as mine. In the end it comes down to a matter of personal belief until further evidence presents itself I suppose...thanks for your comments.

Indeed, it most certainly comes down to belief. Without solid, tangible evidence one must rely on faith (something I'm not a huge fan of since I'm a staunch skeptic). Again, I don't deny, but I do demand evidence to be convinced. Thanks for the great exchanges.