We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
This blog post had me thinking that people may be conflating two related, but distinct issues here on the Alien/ET hypothesis, or "ETH". The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.

I think this is hasty reasoning. We confuse "visitation" with "habitation". Races capable of interstellar travel could conceivably inhabit regions beyond human detection. Indeed, a round trip between our Earth and their native star systems would require a travel distance spanning beyond our range of detection, if advanced civs. are few and far between. The "no-detection" argument is a non-sequitur.

It's even possible that our instruments aren't calibrated to pick up other signs of intelligent life that may reside in the Universe. Precisely such a society might be one that doesn't rely on the specific signs of civ. we're familiar with (radio frequency bands for communication, etc.). In which case, our detection of them is impossible. But their visiting us isn't. I'm not claiming that ET have 100%, definitely visited Earth. I'm just pointing out that the "no-detection" argument isn't very good for claiming that aliens haven't visited.

Let me offer an analogy: A robber breaks into your house. He steals your things, i.e. he alters your environment. You wake up to find that your house has been disturbed. You don't know where the robber came from. But you have evidence he was there, because the pattern of disturbance is consistent with a robbery. You don't need his home address or personal ID to know the specific robber. You just need enough evidence to show that a robber was in your house.

I will say this about visitation. ET visitation by definition requires that we're visited by non-Earth entities. There are two routes to establishing this.

a) Evidence of visitation from specific planet/star system (deductive reasoning).
b) Evidence of possible visitation by non-Earth entity (inductive reasoning/"proof" by elimination)


For (a), by definition, someone from say, Mars, is a non-Earth entity. The conclusion (non-Earth entity) necessarily follows from the premise (He's from Mars). However, we don't have compelling evidence to pin down a specific location for myriad kinds of visitors (ranging from Nordic humanoids, to dwarves, and even to mechanical/robotic).

So, we're forced to go down route (b): The patterns of disturbance can't be consistent with any known human/animal activity (or "proof" by elimination). Any conclusion would be a generalized statement from an observation of patterns (inductive reasoning). This is a troubling route, because we can't suppose visitation from simple negative evidence alone. We need positive evidence. That's why I placed "proof" in brackets. So, it seems a logical starting point is somewhere between (a) and (b). And of course, is it reasonable to draw such a conclusion at all from the present evidence?

I hope you enjoyed this read.


edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: Fixed error in thread title.
edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

RUInsane

I will say this about visitation. ET visitation by definition requires that we're visited by non-Earth entities. There are two routes to establishing this.

a) Evidence of visitation from specific planet/star system (deductive reasoning).
b) Evidence of possible visitation by non-Earth entity (inductive reasoning/"proof" by elimination)


For (a), by definition, someone from say, Mars, is a non-Earth entity. The conclusion (non-Earth entity) necessarily follows from the premise (He's from Mars). However, we don't have compelling evidence to pin down a specific location for myriad kinds of visitors (ranging from Nordic humanoids, to dwarves, and even to mechanical/robotic).

So, we're forced to go down route (b): The patterns of disturbance can't be consistent with any known human/animal activity (or "proof" by elimination). Any conclusion would be a generalized statement from an observation of patterns (inductive reasoning). This is a troubling route, because we can't suppose visitation from simple negative evidence alone. We need positive evidence. That's why I placed "proof" in brackets. So, it seems a logical starting point is somewhere between (a) and (b). And of course, is it reasonable to draw such a conclusion at all from the present evidence?

I hope you enjoyed this read.



Or you could "Infer" the presence of ET.

There are mathematical / statistical methods that can "Infer" the "unknown" with extreme high accuracy. Method we all use in our day-to-day living, methods that the entire Human population relies upon for survival and daily activities.

This process is called "Bayesian Inference".

But this is only a way for you to know a little about ET, and cannot tells us "WHY" ET won't land.

Perhaps this article begins to explain "why" ET doesn't interact with Terrestrials.
Article here


4. You’re delusional.
People are always wondering "why" ET doesn't make contact. Yet, when ET does try, he is routinely rejected as a "delusional". Typically without examining ET statements or evidence. And then of course, you go on to wonder why ET won't make contact. This is actually one of the early “traps” in sentient reasoning. When One is confronted with something that is too difficult to consider; making it a “Delusion” of some sort, somehow, tends to ease the pressure on the unprepared mind. It is also one of the most significant insulators individuals, and societies have against external contact. Regardless of the conditions of contact, this can become a significant bar to the continued evolution of a species, and culture.


There are prolly lots of reasons ET doesn't "stop" and visit, and most of them are created by Terrestrials.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
There could be a number of reasons for our not, so far, being able to detect extraterrestrial civilizations. It isn't even necessary to assume that they don't use radio, or that they are scarce in the galaxy.
We have made only an extremely sketchy survey of all the possible combinations of radio frequencies, points of origin, and possible signal strengths. ETs could also be using a modulation scheme with which we're unfamiliar. We could be hearing their signals right now and not knowing it, mistaking them for part of the background noise.
We already know that the most efficient signals closely approximate the appearance of radio noise, without the key to interpret them. A multitude of extremely short bursts of signals of a wide bandwidth could easily pass for noise, as could signals that hop very rapidly from one discrete frequency to another.
We should also consider the possibility of other electromagnetic ranges used for communications. Some SETI work has been done in the optical range, but, again, it has scarcely scratched the surface of a world of possibilities. Light offers the advantage of much greater available bandwidth than radio.
Is it reasonable, on the available evidence, to argue for visitation? Opinions on this vary widely, of course. I'm inclined to say yes. A number of scientifically trained and respected persons happen to share this opinion. That is a matter of record. Of course the majority of openly expressed scientific opinions is to the contrary.
I would point out that the popularity of a scientific conclusion is not always a reliable guide to its ultimate correctness. The Earth was once almost universally held to be at the center of the solar system.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 

Look. Youre wanting some "proof" by some criteria you set for acknowledgement theyve been or are here. And thats a very un-educated way to think.

You honestly believe that we...with our few hundred of years of tech advancement...would have any idea somethings been here or is here? We have no concept of if they have bodies, if they need hard material spaceships to fly around deep space, if they even need or want to comunicate with our primitive ant-hill planet concerning itself with our own destruction?

Thats giving advanced extraterrestial species absolutely zero credit...because we arent anywhere yet...and maybe wont be for another million years...where they are now.

They may look like nothing we'd recognize, leave no traces we'd accept or understand, or even have any need to let us know theyve been (or are now) here on Earth.

So to place conditions on what would and wouldnt be acceptable to our primitive way of thinking...is not giving any credit to interstellar travelers of millions of miles and years of advancement past our own.

This is what is going to trip us up. One day we'll find out they arent coming...because theyve always been here in a shape we dont recognize because we cant.

And the whole time..we'd be waiting for criteria WE set up to PROVE they are here?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

mysterioustranger
reply to post by RUInsane
 


This is what is going to trip us up. One day we'll find out they arent coming...because theyve always been here in a shape we dont recognize because we cant.

And the whole time..we'd be waiting for criteria WE set up to PROVE they are here?


It would not shock me if right now there is a little alien nanobot in your room giggling or whatever the alien nano bot equivalent is.

That said, we will find them eventually and like you said, my suspicion is that when we do find them we will find that we are surrounded by them.

But it won't be little grey guys in flying saucers that we will find.
edit on 26-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I would have to say not only have they been here, more like are here and do whatever it is they do. Most of us are led to believe they are here to take over, make slaves out of us, or take body parts and mess with you with missing time.

Plus why would ET Want to hang out with the Humans? That would be the question to ask really. I'm sure they have found a very tiny small group of people to talk to and that would be kept to themselves. You just do not share that info, too many risks for them as you yourself would be placed in a special room till you cried if you had any fingers left!

Plus you could not tell the difference from them or a cat either. Maybe going out on a limb on that one although it would be a place to hide and learn about the Humans! Shape would not mean anything to them, could just be a suit shifting patters your eyes can't see through. Now if one want to take over the world it would be done this way, from the inside so that not much damaged is done to the actually Planet.

Fact is, Humans do not play nice!

Peace



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


being open minded, I like your idea of thinking here!



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


We can't project human motivations onto an alien mind. There are as many reasons they could come here, as opposed to why they wouldn't. Why would humans visit a large, ancient canyon? Why would we bother to "protect" the environment, knowing other species freely alter it to suit their needs (e.g. beavers with dams)? These are questions an alien could conceivably ask of us. We don't know their motivations. We could make a few educated guesses (e.g. scientific exploration, trade, colonization). We only have close-encounter reports to rely on.

Asking "Why would they come here?" doesn't negate the report. The witness believes he/she saw an alien life-form. So, it's rather, is the report credible on its own merits? We have to start our inquiry from a reasonable cut-off point--it may as well be those reports itself. By the way, failing to find something significant is just as good as finding something significant. We do science on things that seem interesting. Whether they lead to equally interesting results, only time will tell. There are innumerably many examples of legitimate scientists chasing tantalizing evidence to dead ends. This isn't a failure; quite the contrary.
edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Exactly my point. Considering their potential advances and tech...even physical appearance...I think it laughable to expect we'd understand what they'd look like, what they'd want, what kind of evidence they'd leave, and what is important to them.

How often do we each walk down sidewalks or trails with anthills on them? Do they even stop to notice us unles we kick at the hill? Generally no. They just keep doing what theyre doing with no regards to who we are, what we may want, know about life or anything beyond their hill.

Thats us to any aliens. And we have no way of even knowing what to look for if and when theyre around. To think we would...is a pretty uneducated...compared to them...idea.
edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: spl ck



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


We don't know the full range of what aliens would look like, but we have a good sample of what don't seem to be Earth-native species.

edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 


Yes. Ill agree with you on most all of your points here.

My opinion only expresses it would be hard if not near impossible to set criteria as in this thread for things we've never seen, have no knowledge of what they look like or what to look for, how they travel, if they travel, what and what agendas they pursue.

Thats why Im of the personal opinion they most likely are right here next to us looking like nothing we'd even recognize, for reasons performing agendas that only serve their purposes.

I think its pointless to expect a "disclosure" as well. Why, when they are most likely already here and have been?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


They could be invisible too. We wouldn't know. In which case, we wouldn't focus on them. But those life-forms that don't appear to resemble any known life forms--is it not reasonable for the witness to assume they could be some sort of alien (assuming the witness is familiar with the various species in that particular location already).

I agree with you on disclosure. The government is just as clueless as the rest of the population as to what UFOs represent. They don't have anything useful to disclose that couldn't be inferred or known already. Though some government factions may possess more knowledge than others.
edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

RUInsane
.... The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.

I think this is hasty reasoning. .... if advanced civs. are few and far between. The "no-detection" argument is a non-sequitur.
Well I don't think that's true because if they are spread out that far it would definitely decrease the likelihood that they have visited us, although by an unknown degree.



It's even possible that our instruments aren't calibrated to pick up other signs of intelligent life .... I'm not claiming that ET have 100%, definitely visited Earth. I'm just pointing out that the "no-detection" argument isn't very good for claiming that aliens haven't visited.
We may live in the reality where ETI is all around us and we can't detect it for the reason you give here. But we may also live in the reality where we don't detect ETI because it isn't abundant around us. We don't know which reality we live in, so we have to consider how the no-detection evidence agrees with both realities. The fact that we haven't detected ETI would agree with the idea that we are living in reality #2. But in no way could it be considered evidence that we are living in reality #1. So overall, it does suggest we are more likely to be living in reality #1, where there isn't much in the way of ETI around us. We're just talking about the no-detection evidence in isolation here. I'm sure there are all kinds of other factors that would play into our calculations, many we haven't even thought of yet.

SETI efforts have so far returned negative results. But I don't think there are too many people who would use that evidence to say that alien visitation hasn't happened. I personally think there is a good chance that the earth has been visited or at least observed at some point during its long history. If you're talking about UFOs, however, the reason to doubt them has almost nothing to do with SETI at all, and everything to do with the quality and nature of the evidence.



So, we're forced to go down route (b): The patterns of disturbance can't be consistent with any known human/animal activity (or "proof" by elimination). Any conclusion would be a generalized statement from an observation of patterns (inductive reasoning). This is a troubling route, because we can't suppose visitation from simple negative evidence alone. We need positive evidence.
I agree completely. We can never say of some weird sighting that it isn't anything we know of, therefore it's aliens. It presupposes that it couldn't be something else that we haven't thought of.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It seems likely that some extraterrestrial intelligences are more technically advanced than we are, by millions or even billions of years. It also seems probable that we would hold only a limited interest for such civilizations.
We should realize, though, that there is an implied range of development in civilizations in the galaxy. If some are billions of years old, some millions, there should also be some of intermediate age, between those and ourselves. Those only thousands or hundreds of years our senior might find us of considerable interest.

Disclosure may be as much about figures of authority admitting the reality of ET visitations, as it would be about a probably limited set of facts about those visitors. The first admission would be the real psychological hurdle. The rest would be details.

It could be very difficult for figures of authority to admit that they were not the smartest, or the wisest, or the most powerful beings in the universe. They might only be inclined to do this if circumstances forced them to. A SETI discovery or an open demonstration of an ET presence at Earth would presumably be such instances.
edit on 26-1-2014 by Ross 54 because: improved paragraph structure



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Ross 54
It seems likely that some extraterrestrial intelligences are more technically advanced than we are, by millions or even billions of years. It also seems probable that we would hold only a limited interest for such civilizations.
Agree completely. We will have basically nothing to offer such an ancient civilization.


We should realize, though, that there is an implied range of development in civilizations in the galaxy. If some are billions of years old, some millions, there should also be some of intermediate age, between those and ourselves. Those only thousands or hundreds of years our senior might find us of considerable interest.
But we would be MUCH less likely to run into them than the older ones. Let's examine some reasons why:

1) Older civilizations are more likely than younger ones to be engaged in activities that we would notice against the natural background of space. If for no other reason than their greater capacity to engage in such activities.

2) Older ones are on average going to encompass a much greater volume of space, and be expanding at a greater rate. So they are more likely than the younger civs to come to visit the earth..

3) Older civilizations will be less likely than younger ones to be wiped out by a series of calamities due to the fact that they are more likely to be spread out farther apart. Therefore older civs will be disproportionately represented in the whole population of civilizations.

4) We are more likely to run into older civilizations purely on account of their age. I think this has to do with the size of their temporal cross-section, and may also be related to how you are more likely to run into numbers starting with a leading 1, than numbers starting with any other number, in any random set of data. I'm not sure how the math works on this point.

5) Older civilizations, being on average more technologically sophisticated and having more resources at their disposal, will be more likely to survive hostile encounters with younger civilizations than the other way around. Another reason older civilizations will have a disproportionately greater presence within the whole population of civilizations.

There must be other reasons I can't think of right now.
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Text Purplereply to post by tanka418
 


I wonder what the OP really thinks........
Despite or in spite of the OP's hypnotic child's bedtime story I will say this;
There are indeed Extraterrestrial visits we know of so maybe there ARE some on Terra as the late Howard menger stated he was actually married to one. Look it up on Google even.
Did Howard Menger, who has model specifications to build you own UFO, lie to sell his 1st book? Possibly. Then I have to ask how he knew how to build a functional UFO for: My male cousin who was in Grade 11 taking electronics, & myself taking University entrance courses in grade 10, actually used the specifics Howard Menger gave in his book, nothing implemented, successfully built a model UFO for our Science Fair. AND it actually worked. We won, not just in our High School but Provincially.
www.thelivingmoon.com... From Outerspace ( To You ) The yellow jacketed version written by him in 1957, 1st version, unedited yet, not very well written, obviously not written by a proffesional writer with improper grammar, puctuation errors everywhere, misspelled words, etc, was the book we used. It was bought at the Roman Catholic summer rummage sale for 5 cents by us. Coincidence? Most likely but maybe not.
After the Provincial Science Fair, it was taken. Supposedly by Scientists for further study. We DID win which was all we really paid attention to. It was 1978/9 & the tail end of a UFO fanaticism. For most people. That's life. Here today till something else is spread so thoroughly by mainly media, it is as though brain washing is implemented by repetition till people move on.
Well, it did not end for everyone, obviously as people seem to be starting a major, " UFO Craze." Or are mere ordinary everyday ppl reviving it? Or our own Governmental's off shoot categories such as, an UFO Operation, E.T Alien Operation, etc, fed to us all once again through the same convoluted media puppets at the corporate top divisions of whom we never really see? I personally question that as well.
Albeit, it DOES appear the focus on, " Out of this world Terrain, other planetary beings we all call, " Aliens? " As all the ppl I know refer to Other Planetary ExtraTerrestrials. Of course thus far, weak attempts of associations to Fairies, Demons or other once 100% known as mythological creatures or species. Or oh for shame!
Interplanetary, ( As in Terra Earth ) Interdimensional,Subterrestrial , Subspecial, & Mythological Creatures, Species or Beings who are NOT Aliens or Extraterrestrials according to whom?
Oh the links I have! Most of which have already been posted on sections of ATS to make a Poster or Replier seem more credible. The links I have but have not seen on ATS by me, well if I can find or stumble upon them, so can anyone lol!
lol! People. People want 100% proof of EVERYTHING or it technically is not proof. News flash. Things that ARE considered 100% proof, RARELY if at all, are 100% truth & just because it's been presented on world wide news, Tv, Radio, News Papers, w/e, STILL does not make it even 50% truth, never mind 100%.
Ah, & the basic jaded, twisted, & cynical human condition/ing. Present ANY human with the strongest proof one can possibly give, it is torn to shreds by attempting to 100% prove it is not proof enough to make anything true or 1% true & when they can't, they give up & move on never really looking through or outside the myriad of their proverbial boxes they are locked in, never knowing they are not truly locked in.
Fads & Phases of thinking behavior come & go. Or do they? Most anything outside family tradition, ( The proverbial box ), are usually easily given up or dismissed before ANY kind of credence is even given the chance as people do not WANT to accept reality into their lives & homes, afraid change in their perceptions of reality is what will truly be the end of the world they want to stay in.

Well who cares if something, anything, possibly beings or humanoids, are called Aliens or Extraterrestrials? The connotation of, ' Alien,' no longer means illegal immigrants. They are called what they are now, " Illegal immigrants."
Also, most people never called Extraterrestrial, not of this world, " Illegal Aliens." Just, " Aliens." As in foreign to what THEY know lol! Think about it. Really.
That makes too simple for anyone's interest so the meaning of the word, 'Foreign ' is usually associated with, " Out of Country or something new to them.' Which make UFO an unidentified flying object instead of an unidentified foreign object leady people to think how they WANT to think. That a UFO is probably secret earth/Terran made objects.
If a Terran human met up with an odd yet human in appearance, they'll think or say the met a foreigner or a foreign stranger, not an Alien in ANY sense of the term Alien, an illegal immigrant or extraterrestrial lol! And that is how they WANT to keep it, consciously or subconsciously. Knowingly or not.
I have proof of certain things, but pictures & videos of them would NEVER be enough. So I tell people who want to argue them, coordinates, exact locations, other ways of seeing these things for themselves. But do they ever use them? No. Why? They honestly do NOT WANT most of those things known when they want to sleep.

Example; I shattered my right leg so bad, bone had been sticking out, my ankle just hanging, foot facing backward, six hours of surgery the 1st time with a 6 week morphine filled hospital stay, leading to a second series of surgeries when all the pins & plates put in & 3 more weeks hospital stay.
The 1 & only relative to visit once the entire time, an Aunt considered legally retarded. I went home in a cast of course, as well as a walker, wheel chair & 2 metal cane crutches. If I could not get to my own late parents for Christmas supper, I'd have to stay home. Which I'd just got home to so was unstocked with food or other necessities. Plus, I was not to put pressure of ANY kind or amount on my leg which had to remain up as much as possible. So that was the 3rd Christmas I spent completely alone, only no tree or anything Christmassy. I'm not Christian or any religion but not an atheist or agnostic? There's a difference between those last 2? But Christmas was not the whole religious celebration thingy for me, it had been the times I wasn't working hundreds of miles North of nowhere, mainly as in 98% inaccessible by any means but bush/pontoon aeroplanes. It was a time I could have with loved one's. Who didn't want to see anyone struggling in a cast while they were eating & playing games.
When the cast came off, I still had to rely on a cane which they thought embarrassing to be seen with only a 40 year old woman having to use a cane. November came, I had to have the surgeries redone as well as having some hip bone removed and transplanted in the ankle upward area with more pins & plates. 5 hours. No ONE visited that time. It was yet another City again.Same Christmas scenario.
The following year? I vomited. I was not allowed to drink around my parents yet my 2 daughters were? It wasn't alcohol, I was on my way out & that had been one of the 1st warnings. But I was given Sh17 & told to go home if I was THAT sick. I wasn't. Yet. They start looking at my stockinged foot & leg claiming not to see any REAL scars, just a few little barely visible ones so therefore, each time must have been an exaggerated sprain or pulled ligaments & tendons. I felt hurt, left, walking almost a mile home at -34*C. No one phoned.
I had to have 2 lumps from the same leg. Turned out to be what on the report said, " Unknown Metal Alloy looking like mini computer chips.
I asked my Dr. a friend & peer, for a copy as well as each & every leg E-Ray & report. He gave them to me but as I was going back for a completely different surgery the end of the next month, I was told to bring them back to records when I went back.
I had them 6 weeks in which I tried very hard to get them to look at before having to return them. The were always to busy or tired to look even though they were at my parents the last 3 weeks.
Afterward, when they'd been returned, my late family said there could not have been any breaks, never mind such severe one's as by then they couldn't see ANY scars. There ARE visible scars. I was sooo incredulously exasperated, astonished & hurt when I asked if ANYONE looked at the proof saying they could've taken them to a professional had there been anything they couldn't understand.
They said, " Doesn't make a difference if they prove everything as those reports & E-Rays could have been made up forgeries or someone elses all my personal information added in by whomever as working in the medical field, I could have found someone to do so.
I said, " B But, yeah b b but...." I was going to say their own Dr.'s could've proved them all real, the said," Yeahbbbutts lived in the bush where they belong." Before I could complete my sentence....
I just thought," Wtf is it with ppl after they move to smaller towns
Seriously. It is if like the movie," Invasion." With Nicole Kidman & the one 007 actor or entire towns male & females alike, like the newer version of," Stepford Wives." Again starring Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Mathew Broderick, Christopher Walken, etc.
I finally learned to quit trying to prove anything to anyone as the information given them was processed, unwanted knowledge is quickly discarded, the unimportant parts they can wrap their brains around, keeping. They will ONLY believe & or accept what they WANT to anyway. No matter what unless or until they have to endure it & keep telling THEIR own information. Sad yet true of most...


I leave off with, " My late Mom ALWAYS claimed I was created by Demonic Lizard like humanoid E.T Aliens & maintained that as some of her last words during her last breaths."
Then again, she conceived me in 1963 age 19, & had me in 1964 3 months before she turned 20 & my late Dad just did & said as he was told to by her as he was 16 years older & so afraid of losing HER, not their 1 & only child.
It WAS the 60's & she wasn't drug free lol!



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 

Yes, we always use the word "government" singularily as though they all are one entity (pardon the pun here). All the govs of the world do not get along, agree or see eye to eye on a lot of different things. Thats why we have wars.Therein is the issue.

To disclose, it would take agreement by a world who can never agree on anything, let alone a serious issue as this one. And using a reasonable amount of evidenciary proof"...whether it be the "Ancient Aliens series", books, studies, video evidence...whatever...and Im not debating even the validity of any of it...I think it can be reasonably certain that they are here now...and have always been.

We just have no clue as to what to look for. Thank you for your reply MS



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Tearman

RUInsane
.... The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.

I think this is hasty reasoning. .... if advanced civs. are few and far between. The "no-detection" argument is a non-sequitur.
Well I don't think that's true because if they are spread out that far it would definitely decrease the likelihood that they have visited us, although by an unknown degree.


But then what of the cases where physical alterations to the environment/subject were experienced? Carl Higdon is one such case. Those effects can't simply be imagined. I mean--suppose you see a flying saucer, and x-ray radiation is found in the soil, but the grass isn't burnt. You can remove the UFO from the equation--but the anomalous radiation remains. The UFO seems integral to understanding how the radiation appeared. Why would you imagine the space-ship, but not the radiation?

It's also possible that space-faring species--wishing to traverse distances >100K light years to look for intelligent life--have developed non-relativistic methods of efficient interstellar travel. This seems to be a prudent route. By my calculations, even relativistic speeds would be far too slow for such distances. IF ETI isn't abundant, it would seem necessary to develop such technologies.

In the case I linked you to, the entity in question transported the abductee to a planet 163,000 light years away in an instant. At relativistic speeds, that would take far more than an instant of travel time to accomplish. Further, time dilation would mean the subject would arrive several generations into the future while aging relatively little on the on-board frame.

Since no such thing happened in this case (Higdon was found only a couple days after his disappearance), it seems clear that efficient space travel won't be a question of warp drives and light speed. Interestingly, the Large Magellanic Cloud--the third closest galaxy to the milky way--is also located ~163,000 light years away. Not suggesting the "alien" was from there. But it sticks out as a possible candidate to me. Just interesting to note.



We may live in the reality where ETI is all around us and we can't detect it for the reason you give here. But we may also live in the reality where we don't detect ETI because it isn't abundant around us. We don't know which reality we live in, so we have to consider how the no-detection evidence agrees with both realities. The fact that we haven't detected ETI would agree with the idea that we are living in reality #2. But in no way could it be considered evidence that we are living in reality #1. So overall, it does suggest we are more likely to be living in reality #1, where there isn't much in the way of ETI around us. We're just talking about the no-detection evidence in isolation here. I'm sure there are all kinds of other factors that would play into our calculations, many we haven't even thought of yet.


Yes, I agree that ETI isn't abundant. But given the vast expanse of the Universe, it seems probable that hundreds of other space-faring species could exist also. In truth, I'm doubtful whether some of the classic close-encounter cases even represent true ETI. It wouldn't make sense for those "aliens" to closely mimic recent developments in human technology. In the Betty and Barney Hill abduction case, the "aliens" had the Hills' vital readings output onto a sort of primitive mechanical graph. That would be dated by our standards today. These supposedly advanced species don't seem more than a couple years ahead of human development. So, I'm doubtful as to how much of the UFO problem is ET. There seems to be a tech. aspect, but that doesn't look like the full story.



SETI efforts have so far returned negative results. But I don't think there are too many people who would use that evidence to say that alien visitation hasn't happened. I personally think there is a good chance that the earth has been visited or at least observed at some point during its long history. If you're talking about UFOs, however, the reason to doubt them has almost nothing to do with SETI at all, and everything to do with the quality and nature of the evidence.


Earth certainly could've been visited at some point. Whether it happened post-WWII is another matter. I can recommend books that pose good evidence in favor of UFOs being a material phenomenon. Here's two. Here's another. I've discussed before at length the sort of evidence one should expect from the UFO field. It's definitely a complicated matter--let's put it that way. I'm careful to note that UFOs don't imply ET. There are three major historical definitions of the term. But, there's good evidence for UFOs inasmuch as it represents--at least in part--some sort of technological aspect.
edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
While you guys debate this topic, without knowing, I know, and yes ET is real. Seeing, experiencing and having some memories, some with missing time, some with wounds, and some with contact, is about all it takes for me.

I suggest reading up on Sleeper's threads here to find out some of the nuts of bolts of what it means. Overall good information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I’m coming clean on Extraterrestrials

and one of my favorites is this actually,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Are extraterrestrials real? As real as the nose on your face.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I should correct my point about efficient travel: That would be relative to our needs. If ETI is rare, then there could be conceivably many uninhabited planets (from an intelligence point of view) within 100 light years where humans could colonize to extract resources. Given that the rate of exoplanet discovery is increasing (some just mere light years from earth), this prospect isn't so dismal.
edit on 26-1-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join