One of the silliest questions in the world - Are we alone in the universe?

reply to post by Navieko


Well then if you know then tell me what the probability is and how did you arrive at it? Why can’t you just set out the scientific argument for it being probable that life outside of this planet exists?

Your right. We don't know how life first formed on this planet, but we do have a pretty good guess, once again -- based on probability.

So your flaky probability that life exists elsewhere is based on your guess about the probability of how life came to be on Earth?

Ok, what is your guess about the probability of how life came into existence and how did you arrive at this probability?


Oh my belief is that the evidence is too lacking to come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
What I'm trying to say is you don't need to answer the question as "YES -- I think that ETs 100% absolutely exist" to avoid being silly. You can answer "I don't know".

I'm with you on this, I don't think either of those answers would be silly, although personally I would never be so arrogant as to answer anything with 100% certainty. But if you look at it from a broader perspective, let's say from a scientific perspective -- or a perspective that aims to find the actual truth -- I believe "yes" would be the more appropriate answer.

[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Mike_A
Oh my belief is that the evidence is too lacking to come to a conclusion.

To clarify my position on this:

Even though my personal belief is that intelligent ETs exist, my personal belief is irrelevant and has no effect on the answer to the question.

It may be "my" answer, but it is not necessarily "THE" answer. "THE" answer cannot truly be known until we actually discover life elsewhere.



[edit on 8/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Mike_A
Well then if you know then tell me what the probability is and how did you arrive at it? Why can’t you just set out the scientific argument for it being probable that life outside of this planet exists?

How about you tell me why it's so important to know what the exact probability (number) is in order to know if something is probable or not.
I've already given you the reasons as to why and how we've arrived at the probable answer. Your just asking the same question over and over without giving me a valid reason as to why the answer would be relevant. If you provide one, I might just be willing to bother finding out what the current calculations by scientists are. All I know is that they have been done, and last time I checked, having to remember the exact numbers was not a prerequisite to being able to know whether or not the answer is probable/likely or not.

So your flaky probability that life exists elsewhere is based on your guess about the probability of how life came to be on Earth?

Actually not my guess, but here you go -- "The most common hypothesis in the scientific community, is that life began approximately 3.5 billion years ago as the result of a complex sequence of chemical reactions that took place spontaneously in Earth's atmosphere. In the 1950's, two biochemists conducted an experiment which showed that certain molecules of life (amino acids) could form spontaneously when the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere were recreated in the lab. It is assumed that over time, these molecules interacted with one another eventually leading to the earliest forms of life." Source

Ok, what is your guess about the probability of how life came into existence and how did you arrive at this probability?

The most likely scenario can be found above. This scenario became the most probable one because of our ability to conduct experiments proving that it's possible. Since none of the other scenarios/theories can be specifically proven possible, they obviously move down to the bottom of the list of most probable theories.

Therefore using this theory and looking at the facts (size of universe, number of planets with similar conditions as Earth), it becomes an even greater likelihood that we are not alone in the universe.

Oh my belief is that the evidence is too lacking to come to a conclusion.

Well It's my belief that there is more than enough evidence to give us a reasonable doubt that we are alone in the universe... and when my common sense/intuition shouts the answer to my face, I choose to listen and go with it.

And just so you know, I'm not some atheist that believes everything science claims is fact -- far from it. I just believe it's not only okay, but it's beneficial to the progress of mankind, to go with the most probable answers in life based on what we know, as opposed to just saying "I don't know". I just find it hard to imagine progress being made with that sort of mindset.


[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Archirvion
not very intelligent are you

Since I now believe wholeheartedly, without any bit of proof, that alien intelligences exist somewhere out in the universe, I guess I'm not. It's the only logical conclusion.

Originally posted by Navieko...I just believe it's not only okay, but it's beneficial to the progress of mankind, to go with the most probable answers in life based on what we know, as opposed to just saying "I don't know". I just find it hard to imagine progress being made with that sort of mindset.

We can still "go with" the most probable answer, and even move forward on the subject based on the post probable answer...

...but the fact still remains that "we don't know" if we are alone or not. If in fact we ARE alone, "going forward with the most probable answer" won't magically change that fact.

reply to post by Navieko


I’m not even asking for an exact probability anymore, you don’t have one so there’s no point. I just want you to tell me why it is probable at all.

I've already given you the reasons as to why and how we've arrived at the probable answer.

What?

Your first post said that based on the evidence it was probable. No actual evidence.

In your second you said that others had already posted the reasons and the facts found by observing the Earth and the Universe is good enough. No actual fact and no evidence.

In your third (directed at me) you said that you don’t need to know the exact probability and that other people had probably done the math. You concluded that you just know without saying how or why.

In your fourth post you said that even without knowing the probability of abiogenesis occurring the probability still favoured there being life elsewhere. Again no evidence.

Then we get to now.

So no you have given nothing in the way of evidence or reason as to why it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Your just asking the same question over and over without giving me a valid reason as to why the answer would be relevant.

You want to know how the answer to “how do you know it is probable that life exists outside of Earth” is relevant to a thread about the probability of life existing outside of Earth?

All I know is that they have been done

You’re probably thinking about the Drake equation which has numerous problems and uses figures that are largely arbitrary. It’s great equation but it is wanting information that we just don’t have yet.

Actually not my guess, but here you go

How does this relate to the probability of it occurring?

The most likely scenario can be found above.

I’m not asking for a scenario I’m asking for the probability of it happening. I know how lightning happens but I can’t tell you the probability of it happening with that information alone.

This scenario became the most probable one because of our ability to conduct experiments proving that it's possible.

That is a different question; the probability of a scenario being the correct one is not the same as the probability of that scenario occurring.

Therefore using this theory and looking at the facts (size of universe, number of planets with similar conditions as Earth), it becomes an even greater likelihood that we are not alone in the universe.

But why? As above knowing the means is not the same as knowing the probability of it occurring. If the theory of abiogenesis you posted is correct it does not tell you how likely life is to form only how it might happen when it does.

The closest you could get is knowing how likely amino acids are to form but that is not the same as life.

If you don’t know the probability of life forming in the first place how can you know the probability of life existing outside of this planet? You are just lacking the requisite information.

What is wrong with just not knowing?

Well It's my belief that there is more than enough evidence to give us a reasonable doubt that we are alone in the universe

And this evidence is...?

A big universe is not evidence, knowing how life comes into being is not evidence, biodiversity on this planet is not evidence.

Complete this sentence, life outside of planet Earth is probable because...

There is another question that goes together with the one presented.

How was life originated?

If you believe a few chemicals and create "life", then evolve after millions of years, then yes, I believe life exists outside of this planet.

Regardless of my thoughts on the origin of life, I believe there are at the very least bacterial life outside of us.

That still leaves much to be pondered about HOW it happened. But we want to find out how we were formed. So we will continue searching for answers and new revelations.

reply to post by Mike_A

See, this is the problem. We're arguing semantics.

Where I use the words "probable" and "probability", I could just as easily replace them with the words "likely" or "likelihood" and it wouldn't change the intent behind my point. This has nothing to do with what the actual mathematical probability is, it isn't some complex mathematical equation that needs to be made. It's just common sense!

And now here you say that what I deem "evidence" is not "evidence". That's your damn opinion, not fact! Anything can be considered evidence, and a collection of evidence can used to determine the likelihood of any given possibility.

To determine if a possibility is "likely" or "probable", it has to be compared to an opposing, contradicting possibility. You compile the evidence that makes the case for both possibilities, and based on which possibility has the most compelling evidence; a conclusion as to which one is more "probable" or "likely" to be true, is made.

It's really not as complex as you seem to be trying to make it.

Many of the world's greatest minds have done this and have came to the conclusion that it is in all likelihood, that we are not alone in the universe. Their conclusions and the reasoning behind them have been well documented and stand to rest with the majority opinion. If you really don't know of the arguments/evidence, than do some research... it's really not hard to find.

Why do YOU believe they/we are all wrong? It's up to you to make your case and have your reasoning analyzed and debated... not the other way around.

We might never know for sure if we are alone in the universe... but what we do know, is that in all likelihood, we are not alone in the universe.

Feel free to make your case if you feel otherwise.

[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]

reply to post by Navieko

See, this is the problem. We're arguing semantics.

Where I use the words "probable" and "probability", I could just as easily replace them with the words "likely" or "likelihood" and it wouldn't change the intent behind my point. This has nothing to do with what the actual mathematical probability is, it isn't some complex mathematical equation that needs to be made.

Of course it’s a matter of mathematics, the OP started the thread with “This is just a matter of statistics and probability.”

Probability is a mathematical concept; there is no getting around that especially in such a scientific discussion.

And now here you say that what I deem "evidence" is not "evidence". That's your damn opinion, not fact!

No it’s fact, either what you have stated leads to the conclusion you give or it doesn’t. I have demonstrated why it does not. I do so again;

The size of the universe is not evidence because this factor alone gives no information on how likely life is to begin. If you disagree then tell me why a large universe makes life probable.

Knowing how life began is also not evidence because this also gives no information on how likely this process is to occur. If you disagree then please explain how this information allows you to assign a probability.

Biodiversity is not evidence because this deals with the evolution of life and not its genesis; knowing that once something exist it will survive nearly anywhere tells you nothing about how likely it is to come into existence in the first place. If you disagree yadayadayda, you get the point.

You are free to say I am wrong but you have to say why.

So why am I wrong, how do you know that life is probable? Instead of arguing about why I shouldn't be asking or trying to change the meaning of the word probable just put forward your logical, scientific, reasoned argument why you think life is probable. Please.

Or just answer this; what information would you need to come up with a probability for life existing outside of this planet and what information do you actually have?

If, however, you are going to persist in this non mathematical definition of probability that has no real world meaning then please do not bother replying.


Oh and no it is not up to me to prove my assertion (though I have above), you and the OP made the initial claim that life is probable; it is up to you to evidence this statement. I have analysed your argument and am attempting to debate it but I am being met by nothing but excuses, nothing in your post actually deals with the issue of how probable life outside the Earth is.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


You don't understand probability or statistics. Of course the size of the universe matters.

Again, this is a matter of statistics, probability and entropy.

If there were only 100 planets then you could say the size of the universe doesn't matter, but there billions of galaxies and billions of planets. So reason and logic tell you you have to take into account the size of the universe.

It's very simple. If 2 people are playing the lottery, it's unlikely that both of them let alone one of them will hit the lottery. If you say 100,000 people will play the lottery then it's more likely that more of them will hit the number.

It's really just basic common sense.

Einstein said:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

It's even worse in this case because we know a lot more than we knew in 1960.

We always weigh things as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on available evidence. We do this in all walks of life. We do it in science, court, investigations and more. This is because in most cases we don't have absolute proof.

This is why skeptics sound so silly because they act as if it's all or nothing and this is never the case. We send people to jail and death row based on probability and the available evidence. This is why people are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and you have appeals.

When it comes to ufology people get a case of the stupids and act like they don't understand that humans use reason and logic to weigh the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time.

You said,

We might never know for sure if we are alone in the universe... but what we do know, is that in all likelihood, we are not alone in the universe.

Again, you're full of contradictions because you think the level headed thing to say is,"we don't know."

What you should say is that "you don't know." I can weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion as to what's most likely vs what's less likely like we do in all walks of life. What do you base this likelihood on that we are not alone?

See, you have reached the conclusion that we are not alone but for some strange reason you turn around and say but we don't know. That makes no sense. We do know based on weighing the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. Now if evidence comes along that supports the assertion that we are alone, then we have to weigh that evidence but until then we can do what human beings usually do and that's weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

Based on the available evidence, the question are we alone is a silly one IMHO .

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


for some people thinking it is enough. Others want to find them and prove it.

its still possible we are alone or effectively alone. The nearest civ could be 2 billion light years away. How will we ever detect them or communicate with them? we may aswell be alone if thats the case.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by yeti101]

Originally posted by Mike_A
No it’s fact, either what you have stated leads to the conclusion you give or it doesn’t. I have demonstrated why it does not. I do so again;

Wrong. A piece of evidence in and of itself does NOT need to lead to the final conclusion for it to be considered evidence. It just has to be a piece of the puzzle, lending credibility -- in combination with the rest of the evidence -- to the final conclusion. Have you watched any court room trials? Have you seen some of the "evidence" that ultimately contributes to the final verdict? If so, you'll know that far less "significant" evidence is often used than that which we've presented.

The size of the universe is not evidence because this factor alone gives no information on how likely life is to begin. If you disagree then tell me why a large universe makes life probable.

It's because we know how easily life is able to begin that makes the size of the universe a HUGELY significant piece of evidence (1+1=2).

Knowing how life began is also not evidence because this also gives no information on how likely this process is to occur. If you disagree then please explain how this information allows you to assign a probability.

It's our understanding of the basic building blocks required for life to emerge -- through observations and experiments here on Earth -- that we are able to conclude that it is more than possible for life to exist on other planets. This possibility -- in partnership with the other facts we have regarding the likely distribution of the necessary building blocks to the billions upon billions of estimated planets that are capable of harboring life -- provides us with some pretty damn good evidence to at the very least be able to conclude that it is a likely possibility that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Biodiversity is not evidence because this deals with the evolution of life and not its genesis; knowing that once something exist it will survive nearly anywhere tells you nothing about how likely it is to come into existence in the first place. If you disagree yadayadayda, you get the point.

I agree. But experiments were made in which they placed the basic building blocks of life into conditions only capable of harboring life, but not containing life (such as the conditions that exists on many of the planets we're discovering more and more frequently), and guess what? ..."God" said, "let there be life!".

So why am I wrong, how do you know that life is probable? Instead of arguing about why I shouldn't be asking or trying to change the meaning of the word probable just put forward your logical, scientific, reasoned argument why you think life is probable. Please.

To be frank, I didn't think it was necessary to have to put forth a great deal of "logical, scientific and reasoned" arguments to prove something that requires no more than a little common sense. Apparently I was wrong?

And no matter how much you push the point, I'm sticking to mine; knowing the probability is not a prerequisite for knowing the probable. In an ever expanding, infinitely large universe, where there exists countless planets capable of harboring life, as proven by observations made on our own world; from scientific experiments to the countless sightings and experiences reported across the globe -- from ancient times to the present day -- knowing the exact probability is almost an impossibility, and yet, we know that life outside of our planet is more probable than ever before!



[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]

So using math to "prove" other life exists huh?

Quote from hitchhikers guide:

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to zero as you can get, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe is zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

Apparently you can even use math to "prove" we don't exist, much less alien life.




[edit on 25-8-2010 by b309302]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


lol I understand both thank you very much.

Reading your post suggests that you haven’t read mine.

The size of the universe matters when trying to determine the probability of life existing outside of the earth. A large size makes it more probable but not probable in absolute terms. However this information is utterly useless without knowing the initial probability of life occurring in the first place.

Going back to your lottery analogy (I’ve already pointed this out), you are correct in saying that a larger number of players means that it is more likely that two or more will win. However this assumes the length of the winning number. If the number is only six digits long and there are a few million players then you are correct but if the number is 100 billion digits long then probability is low.

So to with the universe and life; even though the universe is very big (10^24 stars) life would be improbable if the odds of abiogenesis occurring were 10^24:1.

As should be clear the most important piece of information in this equation is the probability of life occurring, not the size of the universe. Thus the size of the universe is not evidence in itself that life exists outside of our planet.

You said,
We might never know for sure if we are alone in the universe... but what we do know, is that in all likelihood, we are not alone in the universe.

Again, you're full of contradictions because you think the level headed thing to say is,"we don't know."

I never said that so it stands to reason it’s contradictory. Please read all of my posts before replying, I have been very clear in what I have said and why.

reply to post by Navieko

It's because we know how easily life is able to begin that makes the size of the universe a HUGELY significant piece of evidence (1+1=2).

But we don’t know that, we have an idea of how amino acids come to be and a hypothesis of abiogenesis but we don’t have enough information to say how likely the latter is to occur.

It's our understanding of the basic building blocks required for life to emerge -- through observations and experiments here on Earth -- that we are able to conclude that it is more than possible for life to exist on other planets. This possibility -- in partnership with the other facts we have regarding the likely distribution of the necessary building blocks to the billions upon billions of estimated planets that are capable of harboring life -- provides us with some pretty damn good evidence to at the very least be able to conclude that it is a likely possibility that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

It is a possibility but that is as far as the information we have can take us. Knowing that the prerequisite parts are there does not tell us how often they will combine to form life; that is what is needed to form an idea of how probable life is.

We know that the prerequisites exist today on Earth (obviously) but how many times have, or would you expect, to see life independently forming (not evolving but actually coming into existing from amino acids)?

I agree. But experiments were made in which they placed the basic building blocks of life into conditions only capable of harboring life, but not containing life (such as the conditions that exists on many of the planets we're discovering more and more frequently), and guess what? ..."God" said, "let there be life!".

Eh? Why was that a reply to biodiversity?

Anyway those experiments have produced amino acids which are a precursor for life but not life itself. There are many more steps before life can said to have been produced, these steps are an unknown quantity in this equation.

In an ever expanding, infinitely large universe, where there exists countless planets capable of harboring life, as proven by observations made on our own world; from scientific experiments to the countless sightings and experiences reported across the globe

Well I don’t consider UFOs to be evidence, ufology is not a science and since this is in the science group I think we should stick to science.

As for the rest I have already detailed why this does not prove your statement. I have also said I’m not after an exact probability because I know you don’t have one.

All I want is a genuinely scientific reason for believing that life outside of the Earth is probable.

Alot of ignorance on both sides of the arguments stems from a complete underestimation of the vastness of the Universe.

In the vast Universe it is very likely that there will be other intelligences and almost guaranteed that there is other life.

Due to the vast size (it literally is infinite for Human purposes) it is also very unlikely that we will bump into one of the other lifeforms/intelligences.

The person who said we have sent a probe to the limits of the solar system and it was like going to the end of the drive is massively understimating the size of the universe

In terms of the Universe, going to the limits of our solar system is actually like not going anywhere...it is such a small distance that it is literally akin to the distances the atoms of your body travel.


There's a great thread on here where some guy explains the size of the universe using golf balls....read it.

Edit:

He obv ripped it off from the astronaut.org..

Here's the best bits :

According to the standard inflationary model of cosmology, the visible portion of our universe; the one mapped by our telescopes is an infinitesimally small speck in a much larger universe of at least a 1035 light-year across! I admit this number is really, really big, and almost impossible to imagine. So lets shrink everything down, WAY down, just so we can get a better grasp of it. Let's imagine that the entire universe that we have seen in all the world telescopes, all the galaxies, all trillion of them, extending out 13 billion light years in every direction is shrunk down to the size of a golf ball. Now you are holding the entire visible universe in the palm of your hand. So how big is the actually 10 to the power of 35 light year universe in comparison? If we do a volume calculation, the actual universe contains 1060 of those golf balls! Wow, I guess we didn't shrink things down far enough, but this will have to do. So how big a volume would 1060 golf balls fill up? Try a sphere 850 light years across! So imagine a mass of golf balls that big, and each one of those golf balls contains all the stars and galaxies that we can see through our telescopes.

This is still almost beyond imagining, so lets take a slightly different approach. Imagine you are traveling so fast that you can go from on end of the galaxy to the other in just one second. That's a speed of 100,000 ly/sec. At this speed the entire galaxy would be in reach before you can say the word "go", and wham, you're there. At this speed, you could travel to the nearest galaxy Andromeda in 22 seconds. And you could cross from end of the visible universe to the other in 72 hours. Continuing on at this speed, it would take 115 days to travel a trillion light years, 315 years to travel a quadrillion, and 315,000 years to travel a quintillion or 1018 light years. And yet you have barely moved at all in comparison to the universe which is 1035 light years across. So, lets speed up our warp vehicles again, so that we can travel a quintllion light years every second. At such a speed we could cross the known universe 100 million times in one second. Ok, so now that we are traveling at a speed that might as well be infinite, how long would it take to cross from one side of the universe to the other?

3.7 billion years




[edit on 26-8-2010 by Jukiodone]

reply to post by Jukiodone

I'm a little confused.

You say:

So, lets speed up our warp vehicles again, so that we can travel a quintllion light years every second. At such a speed we could cross the known universe 100 million times in one second.

I understand the post so far:
Our hypothetical spaceship is moving so fast that we can cross the "known universe" 100 million times in one second.

But then you say:

Ok, so now that we are traveling at a speed that might as well be infinite, how long would it take to cross from one side of the universe to the other?
3.7 billion years

Pardon me if I a misunderstanding your post, but what's the difference between the "known universe" and the "universe"? Why would it take longer to cross the "universe" than it does he "known universe?

Isn't the known universe basically the whole universe as we know it? Maybe the universe IS bigger than the known universe, but if the rest of the universe is unknown, how do you know how much bigger it is?

Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post



[edit on 8/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Personally, I don't think it is as simple as you think.

Although evolution roughly explains how life changed from one form to another, it does NOT explain how life began. To this day, there is no proof of the exact origin of life.

If you believe the theory that simple elements of matter magically formed life all by itself on accident because of random chaos... then sure, it is probably possible for this random chaos to happen in other parts of the universe and create life there too. It is reasonable, with this theory, to assume life is abundant all over the universe.

However, there is still the possibility that an unknown force, something that which few can comprehend, created life. Since life has yet to be found in other parts of our solar system, it may still be possible that this unknown force only created life on Earth.

Because of the awkwardness of reality, you can NOT rule out the possibility that the formation of life was caused by another outside unknown force, and NOT by chaos among elements.

So, OP, you are putting a lot of faith in theories (science) that has yet to be proven. If someone can prove that life was caused and created by chaos among elements, yes, that does make it possible for life to be found all over the chaotic universe. But, we still don't know how life was formed. It is still possible that some force outside of anything we know created life, and we don't know if THAT force is found all over the universe.

Do you get what I'm saying?

reply to post by Mike_A


Thank you Mike_A, I for one appreciate your attempt to keep the feet to the fire on this one. But incredibly, after several of your rather patient posts, they still don't seem to be getting it.

It's obvious you have respect for logic, and in fairness expect others to as well. But, they don't even seem to know that their arguments are, forgive me, but in the words of the OP, "silly". And then, when it's evident that they have not even bothered to read your responses, it can be frustrating.

What to do? In my experience, after you get to a certain point, you really can't make much progress, at least with the fervent believer-type. And that's really the problem, IMO. "Belief", whether religious, or "scientistic", etc., it's not always entirely rational.

Certainly, everyone has "reasons" for believing in this, or that, but the truth is, many would be hard-pressed to explain, logically, why they have their beliefs. Then someone comes along, and asks them to kindly explain, and they can't. They try, but if they've never really done it before, they will find themselves at a bit of a disadvantage.

Of course, everyone needs to learn, and grow, but there is a huge impediment that we all face: We don't necessarily recognize that we lack the "requisites", as you put it, to begin with. Why this is can be debated, intelligence issues, insufficient humility, etc., but regardless of why we fail to recognize this essentially hopeless situation, we're left in a very poor postion to ever make true progress. Our arguments are doomed to failure, and we simply can't see it (yet).

But I imagine that it's that "yet" that makes many of us carry on. Most of us do want to help our fellows I think, and while it is frustrating, there are occasional moments, and I for one, enjoy them, as rare as they seem to be.

Thanks for fighting the Good Fight. Looking forward to a few more good posts, seeing what might happen!

JR

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by Archirvion

 

Show the evidence of the government working with alien races.
There is none.

I will post a few links for youi to read, make your own decision whether or not our government is in collusion with ETs.
OK, let's begin with our own Sgt. Clifford Stone

History Denied: UFO Secrets Of The US Government

U.S. Presidents and UFOs

The Condon Report

MAJESTIC 12 AND THE SECRET GOVERNMENT

N.S.A. UFO Documents Index
(The National Security Agency was created to keep hidden the ET Technology and Threat they presented to humankind)

Project Serpo--The Zeta Reticuli Exchange Program

The Philip Corso Legacy

Two whistleblowers independently report teleporting to Mars and meeting Martian extraterrestrials

Eisenhower Briefing Document

Krill UFO Revelation

The truth is there is a great deal of evidence, and to smugly sit and deny what you know is a reality, is well, lying to yourself. That computer you are sitting at is ET Technology, as are the transistors that make it possible.