Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[Proton Soup]

Thats off topic.

depends. i think maybe he means panspermia.

 

[kasse]

You contradict yourself - you use the term unidentified flying object, then you say this unidentified object didn't exist.

You know what I mean.

 

[kasse]

depends. i think maybe he means panspermia.

True, it may well be, but that's another discussion.

 

[baywax]

True, it may well be, but that's another discussion.

This discussion is based on the title of the thread.

Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

Please explain how panspermia doesn't have a place in this discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but that doesn't make it rational. I also understand why people are religious, nazis etc. People want to feel being part of something bigger.

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

Godwin!


There is evidence for flying saucers, it's just not compelling evidence. But that's a judgment call made by each individual.

Even those most critical of the idea must first still examine the evidence before deciding that it can be dismissed.



And I think by comparing it to religions and other establishments, you are simply trying to stir the pot. It's one thing to believe in unfounded ideas - we all do to some extent or another - it's another thing how strongly one will stick to those ideas. I'm guessing your idea of religions and naziism involves preconceptions of zealotism, and I imagine you think the same way about UFO-believers, but there is no dirth of moderate UFO-believers out there, so your comparison is more inflammatory than it is substantive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When it comes to UFOs (i.e. flying saucers), I think believing in this is even lower than religion, because - unlike religion - it's not something that's been imposed in your childhood, but a really bad decision you've made on your own based on no evidence.

Oh please, your view is completely distorted. One doesn't gain an interest in this because there is no evidence, in fact, it is just the opposite. Indeed, you are the one suffering from a religious bias.

Have you reviewed the UFO Napster in detail?

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed, you are the one suffering from a religious bias.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.

Science is no harbour for the hateful, the intolerant or the derisive.

 

[Pythagorean]

is there any reason ball lightning couldn't explain "a flash of light" passing by?

 

[Pythagorean]

I tend to be skeptical of individual accounts myself, but the question of whether there's life out there can't be answered yet at all.

In my opinion, there is most likely life out there (heck, did you know http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/space/16obvacu.html" ?.

However, when it comes to "intelligent" life being out there, I'm not so sure...

...and then when we come to the question of whether it's visited Earth, I'm even more skeptical. But I also think it would be awesome, so I'm happy that there's people investigating it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Given that most scientists now recognize ball lightning as a genuine phenomenon, there is little doubt that some UFO reports are really ball lightning reports. Also, I tend to think that there may be other similar phenomena not yet recognized, that are mistaken for something else.

 

[Pythagorean]

Given that most scientists now recognize ball lightning as a genuine phenomenon, there is little doubt that some UFO reports are really ball lightning reports. Also, I tend to think that there may be other similar phenomena not yet recognized, that are mistaken for something else.

one of the common themes in lightning science (part of my research as an undergrad) was that we've only scratched the "tip of the iceberg" as far as cloud dynamics are concerned.

There are crazy things surrounding lightning like elfs, sprites, and blue jets:
http://elf.gi.alaska.edu/

It's a common research topic up here. I imagine there's a lot of neat light shows that could come out of the right conditions in a cloud.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't want to stray too far from the subject of O'Hare, but you may find this report interesting. It is the second case linked in the UFO Napster.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

I talked with Col Halt for about an hour, and he feels that what he saw was terrestrial, but unknown. He can't account for the claim by his subordinates of a craft on the ground. The acting security officer said that he touched it.

Still, I have often wondered if proximity to some phenomena like this can cause dramatic hallucinations. This might explain some perplexing reports.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I tend to be skeptical of individual accounts myself, but the question of whether there's life out there can't be answered yet at all.

In my opinion, there is most likely life out there (heck, did you know http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/space/16obvacu.html" ?.

However, when it comes to "intelligent" life being out there, I'm not so sure...

...and then when we come to the question of whether it's visited Earth, I'm even more skeptical. But I also think it would be awesome, so I'm happy that there's people investigating it.

If we could consider anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, this would be a done deal. But no account can be taken as proof of anything. And I've never seen the evidence that would throw me over the cliff. Still, when you find millions of people yelling fire, it doesn't hurt to look for smoke.

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But we might find some interesting things along the way. For all of the compelling reports that exist, if there are no ETs, then it would seem that there are some fascinating phenomena yet to be identified and quantified by science.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But with all the near-misses to-date of these visiting ETs, one expects that merely time and chance will conspire against them and eventually result in an incident that is so public as to be virtually irrefutable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The person who established and runs the National UFO Reporting Center, Peter Davenport, was trying to create a passive Radio detection network that would act as a passive RADAR system. The idea being that many receivers detecting stray RF could be coordinated to track reported UFOs. But I don't know if he has made any progress on this.

 

[baywax]

But with all the near-misses to-date of these visiting ETs, one expects that merely time and chance will conspire against them and eventually result in an incident that is so public as to be virtually irrefutable.

This is what we could say about the Sasquatch, the Yeti, the Ogopogo and the Lock Ness Monster. These sightings and claims have been around longer than alien UFO claims and there are still no evidences other than the usual hoaxes, videos and snap shots.

 

[Pythagorean]

If we could consider anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, this would be a done deal. But no account can be taken as proof of anything. And I've never seen the evidence that would throw me over the cliff. Still, when you find millions of people yelling fire, it doesn't hurt to look for smoke.

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But we might find some interesting things along the way. For all of the compelling reports that exist, if there are no ETs, then it would seem that there are some fascinating phenomena yet to be identified and quantified by science.

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

Also, we don't find any reports of God encounters at the NSA. Even anecdotal evidence can be relatively weak, or strong.

Note that a few posts were merged onto this page from another thread. Threre may be a bit of discontinuity.

 

[baywax]

Well yes, if we could consider anecdotal evidence, we might look at all religion and the millions yelling fire there, too. I don't agree with Kasse that believing in UFO's is somehow "lower" than believing a religion. They're both hard to falsify at this point, but accepting religion would change a lot of different assertions about reality (depending on the particular religion) while accepting UFO's wouldn't change much at all in terms of physical reality.

Hi Py,

There's a huge difference between the UFO phenomenon and the religious phenomenon. Religion is probably the first form of government in the tribal situations that were taking place 40, 50, 100,000 years ago and earlier.

Book reference: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0810941821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
(Siting such sites as the Chauvet Cave in France)

The first "shaman" figured out when the moon would be "missing" or "full" and this supposed fortune telling gave the shaman the power to become the tribe leader by decree. This position was useful because one man or woman suddenly had the ear of the entire tribe. So, religion grew from there as a control mechanism... bringing about morals and customs that perhaps helped the community and most certainly helped to maintain the religion.

Today this phenomenon has diversified to a great degree and so have the claims, the sightings, the stigmata, the floating angels, faces on the toast and in the grease stain not to mention "miracles".

The UFO phenomenon began when humans could comprehend the fact that a structure could fly. There's no one really telling us what UFOs are doing here... there's plenty of them trying to on the net. You know, they channel them and write huge papers on what they're here for. They're like the first Shaman trying to cache-in on the people's ignorance of celestial mechanics, but in the case of UFOlogists, they're just guessing and they're saying anything that will make them seem important (OK, a bit like religion).

 

[CEL]

Also, we don't find any reports of God encounters at the NSA. Even anecdotal evidence can be relatively weak, or strong.

Well, God met personally with Noah and Moses. His messengers, the angels, appeared to the Virgin Mary, to Mohamed and to Joseph Smith.
Saints and the Virgin Mary are said to appear to several people.
So, there is anecdotal evidence for God, even if it is not so abundant as there is for UFOs.

 

[Pythagorean]

Hi Py,

There's a huge difference between the UFO phenomenon and the religious phenomenon. Religion is probably the first form of government in the tribal situations that were taking place 40, 50, 100,000 years ago and earlier.

Book reference: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0810941821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
(Siting such sites as the Chauvet Cave in France)

The first "shaman" figured out when the moon would be "missing" or "full" and this supposed fortune telling gave the shaman the power to become the tribe leader by decree. This position was useful because one man or woman suddenly had the ear of the entire tribe. So, religion grew from there as a control mechanism... bringing about morals and customs that perhaps helped the community and most certainly helped to maintain the religion.

Today this phenomenon has diversified to a great degree and so have the claims, the sightings, the stigmata, the floating angels, faces on the toast and in the grease stain not to mention "miracles".

The UFO phenomenon began when humans could comprehend the fact that a structure could fly. There's no one really telling us what UFOs are doing here... there's plenty of them trying to on the net. You know, they channel them and write huge papers on what they're here for. They're like the first Shaman trying to cache-in on the people's ignorance of celestial mechanics, but in the case of UFOlogists, they're just guessing and they're saying anything that will make them seem important (OK, a bit like religion).

I think I agree more or less. There's a spectrum of rationality in any study. Of course, religion has elements that are irrational by definition. A more rational approach to a god would be deism, but the purest form of deism has no regard for human morality or choices, so it would probably be useless in most politics.

With UFO's, you can find anything form rational investigation to alien cults awaiting the mothership and forming suicide pacts.

My favorite was an older friend of mine who put the two together: The aliens created us. That's why they make obscure visits... and he alleges that the Aborigines in Australia have a different genetic code (which they do) because they were a sort of 'prototype' of the human race. He frames it in a scientific light and it's an interesting enough idea;

Anyway, I guess that's a sort of his version of "intelligent design", heheheh.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is what we could say about the Sasquatch, the Yeti, the Ogopogo and the Lock Ness Monster. These sightings and claims have been around longer than alien UFO claims and there are still no evidences other than the usual hoaxes, videos and snap shots.

While true in principle, I would suggest the likelihood for UFOs far outstrips those for cryptozoological sightings, merely by the very nature of the sightings. Not the least of which is the potential for multiple witnesses over a very wide area compared to single or few witnesses in very remote, inaccessible locations.

 

[baywax]

I think I agree more or less. There's a spectrum of rationality in any study. Of course, religion has elements that are irrational by definition. A more rational approach to a god would be deism, but the purest form of deism has no regard for human morality or choices, so it would probably be useless in most politics.

With UFO's, you can find anything form rational investigation to alien cults awaiting the mothership and forming suicide pacts.

My favorite was an older friend of mine who put the two together: The aliens created us. That's why they make obscure visits... and he alleges that the Aborigines in Australia have a different genetic code (which they do) because they were a sort of 'prototype' of the human race. He frames it in a scientific light and it's an interesting enough idea;

Anyway, I guess that's a sort of his version of "intelligent design", heheheh.

The similarity between UFOism and deism can be found in how people who witness what they identify as "otherworldly" identify it as such through interpretation and anthropomorphism, not by actual proofs and evidence. Often their interpretations lend themselves to their own ulterior motives and plans of totalitarianism. I guess this would include mass suicides and hitching a ride on comets etc...

On a side note:

Abstract

The mitochondrial DNA (mt-DNA) variation of in the Walbiri tribe of the Northern Territories, Australia, was characterized by high resolution restriction fragment length polymorphism (HR-RFLP) analysis and control region sequencing. Surveying each mt-DNA for RFLPs with 14 different restriction enzymes detected 24 distinct haplotypes, whereas direct sequencing of the control region hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) of these mt-DNAs revealed 34 distinct sequences. Phylogenetic analysis of the RFLP haplotype and HVS-I sequence data depicted that the Walbiri have ten distinct haplotype groups (haplogroups), or mt-DNA lineages. The majority of the Walbiri RFLP haplotypes lacked polymorphisms common to Asian populations. In fact, most of the Walbiri haplogroups were unique to this population, although a few appeared to be subbranches of larger clusters of mt-DNAs that included other Aboriginal Australian and/or Papua New Guinea haplotypes. The similarity of these haplotypes suggested that Aboriginal Australian and Papua New Guinea populations may have once shared an ancient ancestral population(s), and then rapidly diverged from each other once geographically separated. Overall, the mt-DNA data corroborate the genetic uniqueness of Aboriginal Australian populations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3B-43W0TGF-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f33ad9c53457bd963d7fb8888f777d4

 

[baywax]

While true in principle, I would suggest the likelihood for UFOs far outstrips those for cryptozoological sightings, merely by the very nature of the sightings. Not the least of which is the potential for multiple witnesses over a very wide area compared to single or few witnesses in very remote, inaccessible locations.

I can agree that there is a likelihood of the existence of unidentified flying or floating objects since so many professional pilots, police and other qualified people have reported them and recorded their activities.

Sightings of a cryptozoological nature take place in accessible areas such as the "Champ" in Lake Champlain--which traverses New York, Vermont and Quebec, the Lock Ness which is surrounded by highways in Scotland. The "Ogopogo" has been recorded via oral tradition for around 7000 years in the Okanagan. Lake Okanagan has a 900 mile trading trail that loops around the 140 mile long lake and is approx. 9000 years old. Today it has numerous roads and highways that follow its shores. And there is video, snap shots and most recently sonar images of a 30 foot, swimming object beneath the waves.

http://www.ogopogoquest.com/

Also, their are reports from 70 of the whites who basically stole the Okanagan Valley from the Firstnation peoples

On one afternoon in September 1926 more than 70 people saw the same dark mysterious reptilian creature swimming just below the surface of Lake Okanagan near Okanagan Mission Beach. The creature was seen to turn like a drill as it moved through the water and to emit a small splash with a flick of its tail before it disappeared. Could those 70 people have all been mistaken about what they saw? Or did are they prove of the existence of Lake Okanagan’s fabled water serpent, Ogopogo?

http://www.worldreviewer.com/travel-guides/monsters/ogopogo-naitaka-of-lake-okanagan/14284/

All of these reports, photos and use of technology such as sonar etc... have a similar tone to the activity surrounding the UFO phenomenon.

Edit: The obvious similarity between monster-sightings, religious zealotry and UFO sightings is the fact that someone is taking these beliefs and cashing in on them before there is any real proof of these phenomena.

 

[CEL]

If we could consider anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, this would be a done deal. But no account can be taken as proof of anything. And I've never seen the evidence that would throw me over the cliff. Still, when you find millions of people yelling fire, it doesn't hurt to look for smoke.

Unless some visting ETs wish to make their presense generally known, I don't think this can ever be completely resolved. Of course, I could be wrong.

But we might find some interesting things along the way. For all of the compelling reports that exist, if there are no ETs, then it would seem that there are some fascinating phenomena yet to be identified and quantified by science.

Sightings of UFOs remember me of the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage: http://richarddawkins.net/social/index.php?mode=article&id=35

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sightings of UFOs remember me of the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage: http://richarddawkins.net/social/index.php?mode=article&id=35

Funny, not me, but then I certainly know a lot more about this than Sagan did. And Dawkings is a man with an agenda.

Late edit: That didn't come out right. We have access to far more official documentation now. And to compare this to something like religion is completely fallacious. Most cases can be dismissed, and many are easily dismissed. But in the most compelling cases, if we take the evidence at face value, and given that we are talking about cases that provide multiple sources of confirmation, including RADAR and visual confirmation, then the conclusion that an alien technology has been observed does not seem unreasonable. In other words, I think we have to allow a little lattitude here. If the established facts lend themselves to this notion of ET, then, no matter what the real explanation may be, we have to allow that the people involved have been intellectually or emotionally traumatized to the point where they believe it. So, while we don't assume ET as an explanation, it is not reasonable to lump this with something like religious beliefs, or dragons in the garage, that are by definition, faith based.

If I had seen what some of these guys say they saw, then I would likely jump to the same conclusion, and I think that is true of most anyone here.

 

[epenguin]

I don't know if aliens have visited Earth but if not they had better do it soon whilst they still can.

 

[N468989]

we evolve at a rate X. if they evolve at rate X^N (N>>0) it is possible! that they will visit us or have visited or will visit!

we actually evolve at X^-N (N>>0) ("the more we try to know, the less we know"). lol

 

[CEL]

Funny, not me, but then I certainly know a lot more about this than Sagan did. And Dawkings is a man with an agenda.

Wow! I did not know that we had a genius in this forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow! I did not know that we had a genius in this forum.

?
Sagan knows more about everything than anyone??

You have to be a genius to know more about a specific subject than Sagan?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Funny, not me, but then I certainly know a lot more about this than Sagan did. And Dawkings is a man with an agenda.

Oh...my...god...not this stupid myth about Dawkins having an agenda. Ok, I just need to stop replying to your posts cause it's so full of misinformation half the time.

If I had seen what some of these guys say they saw, then I would likely jump to the same conclusion, and I think that is true of most anyone here.

I wouldn't, but that's cause I probably think a little more scientifically than you do.

 

[Pythagorean]

Oh...my...god...not this stupid myth about Dawkins having an agenda. Ok, I just need to stop replying to your posts cause it's so full of misinformation half the time.

 

[baywax]

we evolve at a rate X. if they evolve at rate X^N (N>>0) it is possible! that they will visit us or have visited or will visit!

Its nice to speculate along the illusionary linear path of evolution but your equation must include the percent of probability for natural disasters and societal upheaval that take place during what appears to be the progress of an evolution or development of a civilization.

 

[CEL]

?
Sagan knows more about everything than anyone??

You have to be a genius to know more about a specific subject than Sagan?

Sagan did not know more about everything than anyone. But he knew a lot about astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
Since Ivan has an agenda: that UFOs are probably of extraterrestrial origin, he implies that he knows more about SETI than his creator.

 

[N468989]

Its nice to speculate along the illusionary linear path of evolution but your equation must include the percent of probability for natural disasters and societal upheaval that take place during what appears to be the progress of an evolution or development of a civilization.

it's just one of many possible situations, of course there are many other situations. Our origin was created upon a unique sequence of events, from which we could (the day will come) have been eliminated by an evolutionary process (disease. disasters, etc). The fact that we evolve at rate X, includes those percentages of failure for both cases.

Relatively to the " Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth" question, it depends what you believe in. I believe that, we ourselves might be aliens on this planet that we call earth. We could have been just an infinitesimal part of THE creation. It's very easy for science to tell us where things started, but only based on "live facts". We don't know when it really begun (only spectulation).