The silence of ET

reply to post by squarehead666


Some humans even talk to plants. My dog knows no less than 20 words or at least 20 sound and body language patterns.

MadMax9
How many on the planet believe in a fable while dissing those who believe in God. About 100% of them.

We'll stop dissing them when they stop praying and groveling. I imagine that only a few very unhinged folks are praying to Bigfoot.

Frith
Its my opinion that our planet is too violent and is thus quarantined.

I like the idea that any successful alien species will by necessity be one of the most ruthless and predatory creatures ever evolved. If the laws of nature extend out into space, then anything that can survive out there is going to be so much more brutal and smart and resourceful than we are that we'll look like plankton to them.

No way we're the scary ones. More like little timid bunnies.

Blue Shift

Frith
Its my opinion that our planet is too violent and is thus quarantined.

I like the idea that any successful alien species will by necessity be one of the most ruthless and predatory creatures ever evolved. If the laws of nature extend out into space, then anything that can survive out there is going to be so much more brutal and smart and resourceful than we are that we'll look like plankton to them.

No way we're the scary ones. More like little timid bunnies.

I like your thinking on this.. but it's equally feasible that
some really powerful predators have learned a soft spot
for weak species like ours.. and want them to grow up
and be 'sport' some day..

Or various other possibilities.. your scenario has a decent probability,
but there are others with similar probabilities.

At least your thinking isn't the pure parroted drivel.

I think most of the ET tech seen/experienced are human made. I believe abductions are human-made sickos of the private or govt kind + powerful drugs + coercion + tech for profit/fun/because they can.

I subscribe to variations of the OP's #5 "Aliens are trans-dimensional beings/ spiritual beings that have limited agency over this realm of existence either by their own limitations or the limitations enforced by a Creator."

Why wouldn't intelligent life evolve into or out of other dimensions? Perhaps those other dimensions/realms exist right here on/in/around earth and other galaxies have their own varieties. We have very limited perception and thus cannot comprehend experiences in other dimensions/realms. So to put 'them' into our constructs of "experiments/hierarchy/duality/etc. may not be applicable.

I do believe, however, that 'they' communicate with some of us and because of the radical differentials the messages are rarely comprehensible, coherent or consistent. Tidbits of this and that, sure. Maybe the common thread or easiest common ground are strong emotions such as love, evil, etc. and that is why we categorize them as angels or demons.

I don't think our brains are capable of understanding them but I do think that spiritual realizations are a kind of dipping our toes into their pond. Some of them probably welcome and help us to do that and others probably are trying to keep us out.

From what I understand after several years of researching this is that there are apparently many different kinds of intelligence out there. They essentially break into three types, the first being hive-mind types that exhibit extensive knowledge, intelligence and sheer mental power but lack the ability to take independent action when necessary. Those like ours, where each person is their own entity and soul, and biological constructs (grey aliens, for example) which are essentially drones that are build to be able to live on Earth's surface (meaning they, themselves, are not, and must act through agents). They build their lairs (or, more likely, we build them FOR them) deep within the earth or at the bottom of the ocean where they can control their living conditions closely as needed.

The more ancient space-faring races banded together to form extensive trade-unions similar to guilds, just on a massive scale. Our solar system is prime real-estate (not to mention our rich resources, mineral and biological) apparently and for that reason alone, will likely never be targeted for an invasion-style assault of the Sol system (simply because nobody wins by destroying Earth and it's resources, the other guilds would surely turn on and destroy the perpetrator).

Humans are easier to manipulate that any of us could ever know, especially when faced with a superior intelligence. They come with gleaming gifts and promises of unimaginable power, how many pivotal leaders in the world could honestly resist such temptation even if they wanted to? They will deceive our world into submission one generation, one regime at a time. And all they ask in return, is the ability to operate freely within our system. What a deal, right?!

Suddenly, ten centuries later, we're the lowest ranking client-state of some huge galactic trade guild and we'll have the pleasure of watching all the wealth buried here traded off-world for their benefit alone. By then, we'll need them, we won't survive another year without them, but by then, it won't matter even if we realize our error, there won't be enough left (of US nor of resources to build an opposing force)...


So yeah, I'm gonna guess it's all about gaining trade advantage with these ET's which are meddling in our affairs... These creatures want to be unfathomable to us, they want us to actually believe their motives are our best interest.

(also I hear there are other more benevolent races that oppose this sort of manipulation of emerging species but they lack the will or ability to force them from our system)


As long as we can subdue this new-world-order bull# and get our heads around it all, we may find a real opportunity to become something respectable and powerful, even to those most ancient.


TL;DR - Our area of the galaxy is heavily populated by powerful and ancient space-faring trade races which expand their empires through subduing emerging worlds into client-states where their resources are funneled off-world systematically. Most of the time, it's said and done without so much as a single protest.

reply to post by someoneinnyc


Well if you read my posts, i'm certainly on board with the
gist of your response.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


Thanks for getting this thread started! I started a similar one last month, but it never gained traction.

After reading that scientists feel that something like 8 BILLION planets like EARTH exist in this galaxy, I came to the conclusion (belief) that intelligent space-faring races must be few and far between. Even if only .001% have advanced civilizations existing at this time, our planet should be buzzing with visitations, which would obviously yield HARD MATERIAL EVIDENCE of E.T. existence. Not just stories and videos of UFO's, but far more tangible proof.

Perhaps time and distance spans such huge gulfs that there could be millions of civilizations over a 500 Billion year span of time, but only 1 or 2 are in existence at any one time. Every time I think in these terms, the material concerns of this life dim to insignificance. But it sure would be nice to know whether or not God created other "intelligent" races besides humans, wouldn't it? Maybe we have to wait until the hereafter, where time is non-existent, to learn the answer.
-cwm

reply to post by carewemust


Puzzuzu started this thread not me.

But yep, it's a huge universe alright.

KPB

reply to post by tanka418


thats cyclical logic... an old star doesn t warrant life... even a habitable planet does nt neccessarily bring forth life... thats a too terrestrial approach.. also.. what exactly is "alien" life? of course we don t recognize it, if we are looking for life similar to us... life can take on SO many forms, even such we caNt recognize as such...


good thread btw.

Dynamitrios
reply to post by tanka418

 

thats cyclical logic... an old star doesn t warrant life... even a habitable planet does nt neccessarily bring forth life... thats a too terrestrial approach.. also.. what exactly is "alien" life? of course we don t recognize it, if we are looking for life similar to us... life can take on SO many forms, even such we caNt recognize as such...


good thread btw.

One can only search for what one knows. The processes which brought life about on Earth are not a mystery nor did they take forever. Almost as soon as the Earth cooled life existed which gives us a pretty good hunch that this is probably the case wherever the conditions for life to take place exist.

reply to post by JadeStar


hmmmm, really? how can we say that, if we only have earth as comparison? everything else is unproven theory... so we can determine the way the universe works by only observing earth and it s conditions? agian ... too earth-centric

yourignoranceisbliss
reply to post by Puzzuzu

 

Would YOU try and communicate with ants? To what end? Do you think an ant could or would have anything intelligent to say, despite we as Humans understanding virtually everything about them and their nature / place in the food chain?

Don't think of it as arrogance, because we certainly hold no emotional feelings towards ants, despite our incredible superiority over them, right?

At the same time, if a fire ant, for example, bites you, and it hurts, does this mean the fire ant holds animosity towards you? No, it's just doing what we expect it to do.

We're just behaving as we are expected to.

They're just behaving as they are expected to.

Everything in its right place.

As proud as we are of all our accomplishments, and I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate them among ourselves, we really are not as significant as we hold ourselves to be.

You give too much credit to them, without having any actual knowledge about who or what they are, for all you know, they're just bots documenting our current world, keeping on it even after their creators moved on or died off, or some form of creature we have never discovered that lives on the upper atmosphere layers (ufos as machines were never proven to be real, and we just get distant lights these days, remember that)

EnPassant
reply to post by Puzzuzu

 

They are technologically more advanced than us but spiritually behind us, by a long way. They are NOT superior in spiritual terms. They are invading by stealth, creating hybrids to get power in the world. It is degrading to compare us with ants, and it is dangerous to make ETs look invincible. That just gives them more power...

Yup..speak the truth. Thank you.

JadeStar

Very good points Alice.

Its a good question, whether there is an upper limit. We simply don't know. I would have to go with "probably not for a long while" for the simple reason that most of what we derive technology from is understanding the physics which allow them to operate and necessity.

We'll be faced with plenty of challenges before we reach "the end of physics".

Assuming we're several million years older, presumably we've continued to have a complete understanding top to bottom of a grand law in which the universe is organized.

Ok, now what... Now its all about applying that in different ways to develop different technologies (which we've been doing along the way of course.)

Things like interstellar travel for example will necessitate a continued evolution and adaptation. It could very well be that rather than terraform planets to be more like our present day Earth, we might manipulate our own physiology and genetic makeup to exist on these other worlds less similar to our own, thus creating perhaps another branch on the tree of our species each time.

So then each of these branches grows and its own evolutionary path may be in a different direction than present day Homosapiens.

See what I mean? There's plenty of room to do this before one would reach an evolutionary ceiling.

Perhaps someone else out there has already reached such a ceiling.

Thank you.

Yes, I agree, should we, or any speculated species manage to break free the confines of origin, there will indeed be a number of challenges, many of which will likely result in adaptations, self directed evolution resulting in off-shoots of the ur-species to better assimilate to and exploit new environments.

This in itself, is, however, just more of the same we have; a biological existence suited for any X environment, regardless how it's arrived at.
Self augmenting/adapting would certainly be more efficient/economical than attempting to terraform new planets/environments.

There's also the machine option in swapping biology for a more robust existence as machines, should ever there come a point where cut/paste of consciousness, personality, "self", or however such might be defined comes possible.

Further, there's mediums between the two where artificial machine bodies reach a sophistication such as to be near indistinguishable from natural biology.
We then have self-healing/repairing immortal machine bodies capable of any adaptation, as well as possibly even reproduction through self duplication, or shared exchange and design with any number of others.

Socially, there could be offshoots that develop into hive-mind/distributed intelligence communities, Individuals that go von-neumann (not good), more advanced versions of what we know now, as well as everything and anything else imagined in Science fiction.

All these possibilities, however, are really only about 500 years distant, if that, and on scales such that were we to encounter them at our present stage, we'd recognize them, and they, certainly us.

Beyond that, if there isn't a technological/engineering/physics barrier, if there isn't a terminal point, we'd be looking at the peculiar and weird, like encoding entire populations of consciousness within the magnetic field lines of Stars, Black Holes, and such, storing consciousness in non-corporeal non-static media like magnetic tape, but, in using more entropy-resistant platforms like suns and black holes that exist for Billions of Years.

By this time, individual consciousness and a sense of 'self' might be a bit blurred.

Such weird solutions, however, are still stuck mostly in relativistic baryonic space and tied to decay and eventual death of this universe.

We then come to 'hacking' the underlying physics of this universe to create our own lifeboat universes against the eventual death of this one.

Through this outline, we have 3 states; one we currently fit on out to 99% of what's covered in science fiction, another where the hot and active state of a civilization concerns itself with long-term survival having satisfied itself with an exploration and data collection puberty, and then, finally, divorce from this universe and the entropy tied to it.

This goes a little beyond the Kardashev Scale, and I propose if there isn't an upper limit hard barrier to evolution, anything beyond a Type II would simply absorb any other civilization encountered simply through social osmosis, like a civilizational amoeba. Such wouldn't necessarily be hostile, or benign.

That all gets into some fun social dynamics involving absorption, absorbency, faux-parasitism, symbiosis, dissolution, and processes more suited to biological discussions than civilizational or social.
In fact, such civilizations would more likely be more adequately described through such.

I think, however, I'm babbling and not really going anywhere with this post, or making any real point for or against evolutionary barriers.

reply to post by Puzzuzu


I don't know about the source of this piece but what it is saying is right on the button. The 4 fundamental activities mentioned are backed up by research from many different sources.

Dynamitrios
reply to post by JadeStar

 

hmmmm, really? how can we say that, if we only have earth as comparison?

Because since Copernicus the trend has been that if it has happened here it has happened elsewhere.

We used to think the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us, we then thought our solar system was unique and everything revolved around it, then we learned we were just one star in a huge galaxy and then that that galaxy was part of a cluster of galaxies and even later still that that cluster was part of a supercluster and that that supercluster was only a tiny part of the structure of the universe.

We thought water and organic molecules, the stuff that makes up life, were unique to the earth and found they are actually some of the most common molecules in the universe.

So it's simple logic, that there is no reason it hasn't happened elsewhere across many worlds in similar ways. And we know a bit more what to look for even though it is "only based on one example" that one example is probably more common than any of us realize.

Of course we might look for it and find something completely different but still a form of life.

An example from the exoplanet world was that the two guys who looked for planets around other stars in the US were not the ones who made the first discovery. They made an assumption that their technique would take several years to produce useable data because they based it on our solar system. Since they could only detect planets the size of Jupiter they were going to look for them in Jupiter type orbits.

Lo and behold a Swiss team made no such assumption and found these oddball planets the size of Jupiter and larger orbiting very close to their star. So they were the first to make the discovery of another planet around a normal, sunlike star.

The two US guys went back through their data to see if they had detected the same planet and sure enough, it was there.

Had they not made their assumption that it would take many years before they had a couple full orbits of potential planets then they would have looked at their data much sooner, and made the first discovery.

Instead, they confirmed the Swiss team's discovery.

It should be noted that they went on to make plenty of discoveries of their own and are among two of the leading figures in that research.

The above story tells us two things: One -should- look for stuff close to the one example we have, otherwise its hard to design an experiment. You can only look for what you know. However, you should go one step beyond that if possible and be careful not to make any assumptions that cause you to miss what's actually detectable.

everything else is unproven theory... so we can determine the way the universe works by only observing earth and it s conditions? agian ... too earth-centric

The laws of physics and chemistry are the same throughout the universe. I thought that was common knowledge.

St0rD
The Moon, ofc.
When you realize it orbits around us 24/7 making it the logical answer to planeteray observation, and then you add to that the fact we never get to see its dark side, you get a very great espionage recipe.

About the aliens: they DO look amazingly similar to us, given the vast amount of options there are. I believe they are actually related to us, as it is what Occams razor seems to suggest.

I hence believe there are two plausible theories.

The first one assumes the 'aliens' are the same entities we know as 'ghosts'. They are a form of activity, maybe life, we do not understand. I'm not sure if they aren't merely 'glitches' or 'disturbances' instead of intelligent beings. Maybe we ourselves create them: they may be a figment of our collective imagination, working on the collective memory which is constantly fed by and queried by our individual brains.

Take, for example, the famous case of Betty and Barney Hill. The 'aliens' actually looked like human beings, though somewhat smaller and with 'funny' eyes. They wore caps. They had clothes. They even had 'maps' and 'books'. They were capable conversation with Betty and Barney (a miracle in itself as such communications require a common frame of reference). They are amazingly similar to us. Same with the Greys: big heads, weird eyegear, but eyes and heads, nevertheless. Bipedal. Have digits, mouths, bellies. They look SO familiar that you can't help wonder: how come? Well, because they ARE similar to us!

Maybe because we DO create them in our collective subconsciousness. And as we only are able to perceive reality using our brains, and our brains are clearly interconnected directly somehow (there is overwhelming evidence of that), my imagination might be your nightmare. This is exactly what magicians have know all along, I believe.


The other theory I think might explain their very human look-and-feel is that they ARE actually our kin and DO live in our system - as you said: on or in the Moon, or on or in moons in our solar system. It is a bit puzzling though why they did not simply choose our planet to live on then. Or .. maybe they did, and maybe they live in vast cities underneath the surface of our planet.

However, I find the first theory the most plausible.

from what i gathered 10 years of studying this subject we are not alone and never were to begin with.
they created us. and yes they are watching us. they dont want us to destroy ourselves because they want to see us evolve on our own without the help from others out there.
when we created the atomic bomb they came here and made contact with our leaders and said thats a big nono. unfortunately we shoot some of them down and got their technology.
in 100 years we invented technology so fast that it is impossible to do so if you take E.T out of the picture.

when we evolve more spiritually and unite as one; then they will come and show themselves.
might take a few years till then...

reply to post by Puzzuzu


You assume they are either here, have visited us in the past, or are in contact with a select few. However, you left out a critical suggestion on your list: They have not been detected or made themselves aware because a) they have not visited our planet; b) they don't exist; c) they exist but communicate in a form undetectable by human observation; or d) they exist but have not had the time to reach us due to the complexities of interstellar travel/radio waves

You seem like a smart guy. But make sure you can argue both sides of the argument.

Facts are stubborn things - John Adams