• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Pentagon official:: There's compelling evidence that we might not be alone

Oct 26, 2018
5,290
4,556
460
What's higher quality images?

Gaming "insiders" leaking shitty gaming images, despite modern cellphones.

NASA and military leaking shitty UFO images, despite military grade cameras and telescopes.
 

Kadayi

GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
8,020
6,780
1,065
theconclave.net
Here is an interesting thought. What is the one thing that could get all humans to come together?

An external threat.

Or, you could be looking at a new world order type situation using the fear of aliens to take away rights.



All joking aside I remember the topic of Space Force coming up on Joe Rogan when he had NDT on there (not the last time, but the time before) and he was all in favour of it because as he rightly pointed out, it's an extremely different environment and it actually makes a heap of sense to have a dedicated department focussed around that in particular and coming up with solutions to its complexity versus expecting the air force to manage both that and conventional issues. Also Space Marines.

 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,155
1,101
385
Ehh, I'm not completely sure of that. There really is no empirical evidence of extraterrestrials beyond the hypothetical what ifs and situations like this where flying objects are difficult to determine (though that doesn't neccessarily mean aliens, there are many possibilities on why the military saw a strange flying object). The onus largely hinges on the believers, as skeptics like me can't disprove a negative.


Yes, there are some very talented and intelligent people that believe in the paranormal, but that does not mean that it is true, that is arguably an appeal to authority. And if we are going with authority, many people involved in studying space don't believe that we are being visited by aliens.

Also, most people aren't jacks of all trades, some geniuses are only confined to their respective fields. Ex. My sibling is studying to be an obgyn and some of the most well respected doctors they are learning from believe the earth is 6,000 years old.


It's certainly possible that extraterristrials exist, but I really have no reason to believe so other than the fact the universe is a big place. I can't say it definitively, but I personally think extraterrestrials don't exist simply because we have no evidence.

I put aliens in the same realm as ghosts because both are paranormal creatures with really no proof of being. Heck, some people in this very thread are arguing that aliens are really interdimensional beings and I personally see no reason to believe that, where that statement even comes from, or even what's really the difference between the two.



Most spacing faring objects aren't human in origin, but rather natural phenomenon such as extraterrestrial debris such as comets and meteors.

I suppose we don't have to explain what something is when we see it in space, but it is good to build an understanding of what an object is and what it is doing. Knowledge is power as they say.


Perhaps they did see something, perhaps it was aliens, perhaps not. I'm not a fan of jumping to paranormal explanations for the unknown though. Human error actually happens a lot, and mass hysteria is possible. Though it is possible you are right and it is certainly unusual, I don't see substantial proof personally.


I don't have any solid explanations, I just don't trust aliens as an answer. I need something physical and verifiably from an intelligent extraterristrial source before I believe that to be a possible solution. It is more likely that ufo sightings were the result of hysteria, or natural phenomenon, or experimental aircraft. Perhaps there is a type of human made craft that acts like a flying saucer.


Not trying to be offensive or anything, I just don't believe in this sort of thing

When I say "people in the know" a good example is the Pentagon official who headed up the program to study the recent UFO's. That was a specific field on the said subject hired out of an agency to oversee the project based on facts.

Even astronauts who have been outside the Earth, tons of accounts on that side of things. Are they all cookos? Maybe, but why would they describe things in a similar fashion over the course of decades? The erratic, ultra highspeed movements, not to mention the shapes.
Did all those astronauts band together to get their story straight to make it appear more feasible? Things like that are very revealing to me as someone that worked in the legal field for years. I used to catch people lying constantly, but putting together similar strings of info about the same story I found was true almost always, especially when the info was divulged from credible professionals. But then again, we had evidence sometimes too to validate, and unfortunately, there's alien corpse or starship to verify that we know of. And even if there was, there are likely many that would deny the evidence in order to preserve their sanity or maintain a previous viewpoint.


I'm not going to go through each point, but your reply is sound enough for me, you're not totally against, but you require more evidence. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

For me, I feel my mind operates in way that I can draw a logical conclusion based on the sheer number of credible sightings backed up by multiple forms of intelligence over the course of 400 years with similar descriptions. I could be wrong of course.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,011
1,937
565
We are example of living things in universe. If we exist then life is not uncommon.
The only question is how rare it is. Is it 1 planet with life per one galaxy ? Maybe 1 in 20 or 1 in few bilion galaxies ?

I think the former is both simpler -- it requires belief in fewer things, namely races/civilizations -- and more probable, given the still-limited evidence of extraterrestrial life.
It is simpler that we are special ? That is literally the most complicated way. Because you would have to argue that everything was done for humans in while observable universe.
 

pork_gamete

Member
Jun 3, 2014
867
531
515
Knowing Bob Lazar's story, archaeological unexplained discoveries, the signs of a huge flood and all the secrecy involving military testing and agencies, I'd say there's a good possibility of it being human technology prior to our civilization.

200.000 years of humanity, in less than 3000 we're at out current state, it's not absurd to consider a highly technologically advanced civilization could have existed thousands of years ago.

I'd say it's more likely than aliens crossing the galaxy/universe to visit us (although I do not completely discard the possibility, I mean, who knows...)
 
Last edited:

iconmaster

Member
Jul 18, 2013
4,385
6,504
850
Because you would have to argue that everything was done for humans in while observable universe.
I would! But under the evolutionary model I’d just argue that the humans are a fluke rather than some inevitable outcome; evolution isn’t directed toward particular ends like intelligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya
May 22, 2018
704
1,259
370
I've know for at least 15 years, i didn't need to be told.



You don't have a clue about the science.
But read these US Navy patents.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/10322827


Things are way beyond your understanding. People like you are the reason disclosure has never happened.
Hahahah what the hell is that video. "The sun was defending himself?"

What?! We are assigning a gender to an inanimate ball of gas and plasma now? Not only that, the sun is apparently capable of launching a "counterattack" against an alien spacecraft refueling there?
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: V4skunk

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,176
5,672
1,560
I always assumed that stuff was down to the military testing out whatever advanced medical equipment they got. Although my neighbor had an interesting take on it, insurance fraud. Some rancher falls on hard times. He's seen the stuff in the papers about these mutilations and bing, easy money
That's the thing with all of these phenomenon -there are multiple fake components around some nugget of truth. The military laser carves out a bunch of organs out of one cow and a farmer finds it an reports it. Next another farmer finds a cow that was predated and had its mouth and butt cored out and thinks it is the same thing. Next another farmer faked it based on the other stories to try to commit fraud or get attention. Maybe the military uses a dressed up helicopter to make lights near the true sites to stir up stories of aliens abducting cows? All those things are probably going on. It is never going to be one monolithic answer - things have to be examined on a case by case basis.

I would! But under the evolutionary model I’d just argue that the humans are a fluke rather than some inevitable outcome; evolution isn’t directed toward particular ends like intelligence.
I disagree - evolution is just about information preserving itself. The mode of information preservation can change, but as long as it is preserved it can continue to propogate.

RNA can be outclassed by DNA coding ribozymes, and then that by DNA coding RNA coding proteins in a simple cell membrane, then that by a DNA in a nucleus, and so on. Each one represents a jump in stability. Now humans are at the peak of evolution in Earth's biosphere, and information is moving outside of us into technology and knowledge. All the most advanced animals are on the cusp of that as well - tool use, passing knowledge of burial sites, etc. That indicates that intelligence is a more advanced stage of evolution - self-directed adaption is more useful than biological adaption.

There is also the fact that intelligence is the only way life can leave Earth before the sun dies. If our primordial DNA vestiges will survive beyond that, they need spaceships.
 
Oct 26, 2018
5,290
4,556
460
Funny how all these big UFO sightings are always shit looking photos or recordings done in some hick area with ONE person seeing it.

You're telling me no UFOs or weird shit in the sky ever hits a small town or huge metro area where 1,000 people might get that on camera?
 

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
809
642
315
Hahahah what the hell is that video. "The sun was defending himself?"

What?! We are assigning a gender to an inanimate ball of gas and plasma now? Not only that, the sun is apparently capable of launching a "counterattack" against an alien spacecraft refueling there?
It doesn't matter what the retarded text says and I already explained my self! You only had to read a little more into this thread.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,155
1,101
385
Funny how all these big UFO sightings are always shit looking photos or recordings done in some hick area with ONE person seeing it.

You're telling me no UFOs or weird shit in the sky ever hits a small town or huge metro area where 1,000 people might get that on camera?

The biggest ufo sightings of all time are well documented to have happened in cities. The Phoenix Lights is just one example. The governor, Kurt Russell were among a few known people, along with thousands of people saw a massive ufo at the same time.

Arizona governor



If you want me to post more I can. The Battle for LA was another.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ixion

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
544
601
365
Can you imagine if mango man was president during first contact? You’d be able to hear the reeeeeee-ing from space.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,155
1,101
385
This is incredible.

Below are links to radar tracks going back to the early 1950s. Military and civilian radars tracking objects going up to 30,000mph with links of supporting evidence.

That 30,000mph speed almost seems like a max in-atmosphere operating speed for whatever reason. Maybe to give them time to avoid hitting an airliner etc. Its fast enough to get anywhere quickly but maybe beyond that its unsafe?


Just hard to imagine 1950s-1960s drones crusing into space and all over the world like its nothing at 20-30,000mph. The sr71 was ultra secret in the 1960s and 70s and was known to be the fastest man made aircraft and could only manage 15% of those speeds, not to mention it couldn't leave the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

SeriousCow

Member
Sep 11, 2019
81
88
185
Melbourne, Australia
Why would an alien race travel so far to just zip around in our skies, and why are they so camera shy? Either they have some sort of prime directive which, for an advanced civilization, they absolutely suck at abiding to, or they HAVE made contact and it just conveniently happens to be with our nefarious government or a trailer park.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: iconmaster

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,155
1,101
385
Why would an alien race travel so far to just zip around in our skies, and why are they so camera shy? Either they have some sort of prime directive which, for an advanced civilization, they absolutely suck at abiding to, or they HAVE made contact and it just conveniently happens to be with our nefarious government or a trailer park.
How do you know they're just zipping around in our skies? Research teams travel by plane to remote areas dozens of hours, it's not about the trip.

And the trailer park thing is a myth, see the OP and posts above.
 

Stiflers Mom

Member
Apr 27, 2012
2,970
481
815
ugh. "only one sentient race". tbh this kind of shit gives me cringes. if scientists think humans really are just animals, then how come animals are not counted as sentient?
Well, then let's say "species with advanced technology, soon to be capable of spacefaring"...

Need to fry me some steak now to let that sink in...
 

Stiflers Mom

Member
Apr 27, 2012
2,970
481
815
I have never once in my life seen or heard anything that indicated that there are aliens, or something paranormal..

(well, except on DMT, but that is another story)
 

SeriousCow

Member
Sep 11, 2019
81
88
185
Melbourne, Australia
How do you know they're just zipping around in our skies? Research teams travel by plane to remote areas dozens of hours, it's not about the trip.
Because there's never any footage of them doing anything else. Just endless speculation.

And the trailer park thing is a myth, see the OP and posts above.
The OP and posts above show nothing about them making contact.
 

Turkey Master Baster

Formerly 'StarlightLotice'
Dec 25, 2018
1,855
1,432
665
Manchester, England
I always wonder, because of how young our Universe is (approx. 13 billion years), and how the Suns have a life expectancy of between a few 100 million years to 10 billion, that the extra terrestrial life out there would be from the earliest Sun Cycles whereas our Solar System is from the second generation.

To which they would have a clear head start in technology if they came from a Star that lived as long as our Sun will?

So thinking this way, maybe they are observing us over time to see how we have progressed on our own planet and highlighting mistakes and improvements that they themselves have experienced, and chronicling everything to ensure we are on the correct path?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,162
2,575
385
I believe in Aliens.

I believe they have, at some point, visited or interacted with this planet.

I hope though, that we never have to try and integrate with them. Look at how we act towards other races, genders and political viewpoints. They would, if they could, wipe us out
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
Yawn. At this point, I think the gov't keeps the UFO stuff going because it provides a convenient cover for their own black site technologies. Who would protest a nuclear-capable stealth fighter when they think it's the little greys paying our planet a visit?

Using air-powered vehicles for wars has only been a thing for about 100 years, and in that time we've made astounding leaps forward in mobility and speed. A VTOL from the 80s would seem like a UFO to a Spitfire pilot from the 40s. We also know that modern governments obscure their military technological developments and try to spread disinformation.

Drones can easily replicate a UFO appearance above a given city.



 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
I watched Rogans talk with Brian Cox. Which is an amazing physicist.
And he said, in his opinion there might be other life, but he had a lot of good arguments why there might be only one sentient race per galaxy.
And that this is actually a very humbling thought.
The Milkyway has 400 billion stars, so I'd go so far as to say he's talking shit.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
Can you prove the witness had no way of knowing this information beforehand?
Just this

"

Under hypnosis Betty was able to redraw the map the alien leader had shown her. Betty was vague about what the map actually showed; sometimes she referred to as showing stars and planets. Her sketch was reproduced in books and magazines. In the late 1960s, a teacher called Marjorie Fish (1932-2013) tried to compare the map with real nearby stars and see if any matched. This would not be an easy task as there were about a thousand stars within 50 light years of the Sun. To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated

  • All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their star’s transition to red giant)
  • All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)
  • Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)
  • Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)
  • M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked, Fish and others assume this would prevent complex life arising, but this is not universally agreed)
After this sifting process (which would have eliminated about 90% of the stars in the 50 light year radius), Fish was left with 46 stars. Using data from the 1969 edition of the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars, for nearly five years Fish painstakingly constructed several three-dimensional models of the Sun’s stellar neighbourhood from wire and beads. She viewed these from every possible angle, hoping to find a pattern matching the Hill map, a long and very difficult process. It is impossible to criticise the effort Fish made. Eventually she found almost a perfect match! It seemed that the map drawn by Betty Hill accurately depicted the stars near our own. All the stars lay roughly on the same plane and the aliens apparently came from the Zeta Reticulum system. The view point was from slightly above the star Zeta 2 Reticuli."


 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
The Milkyway has 400 billion stars, so I'd go so far as to say he's talking shit.
The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.

But all of our empirical evidence points to the opposite. We know that earth's position in the galaxy (on the outer fringes) has likely played a role in our planet's survival. The habitable planet's location in the solar system, the specific composition of the home star and surrounding planets, the presence of a magnetosphere, the presence of plate tectonics, the presence of stable, liquid water over a sufficient period of time, etc etc are all factors contributing directly to our existence, and we can see whether those factors are common throughout the galaxy.

Even our galaxy's position in the universe (standing nearly-alone in a large void) is a factor in earth's long-term survival.

Just this

"

Under hypnosis Betty was able to redraw the map the alien leader had shown her. Betty was vague about what the map actually showed; sometimes she referred to as showing stars and planets. Her sketch was reproduced in books and magazines. In the late 1960s, a teacher called Marjorie Fish (1932-2013) tried to compare the map with real nearby stars and see if any matched. This would not be an easy task as there were about a thousand stars within 50 light years of the Sun. To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated

  • All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their star’s transition to red giant)
  • All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)
  • Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)
  • Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)
  • M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked, Fish and others assume this would prevent complex life arising, but this is not universally agreed)
After this sifting process (which would have eliminated about 90% of the stars in the 50 light year radius), Fish was left with 46 stars. Using data from the 1969 edition of the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars, for nearly five years Fish painstakingly constructed several three-dimensional models of the Sun’s stellar neighbourhood from wire and beads. She viewed these from every possible angle, hoping to find a pattern matching the Hill map, a long and very difficult process. It is impossible to criticise the effort Fish made. Eventually she found almost a perfect match! It seemed that the map drawn by Betty Hill accurately depicted the stars near our own. All the stars lay roughly on the same plane and the aliens apparently came from the Zeta Reticulum system. The view point was from slightly above the star Zeta 2 Reticuli."
Two things:

One, this still doesn't prove whether Betty had access to that information before hand.

Two, the drawing is crude enough that -- given the vast number of stars in our local area, as you yourself have pointed out -- there's a not-zero chance that Mrs. Fish simply got a lucky match based on the painstaking research (read: constantly pouring over every conceivable permutation).

We have megaliths that line up with stellar phenomenon. Looking up at the stars and drawing pictures is clearly not a new phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.

But all of our empirical evidence points to the opposite. We know that earth's position in the galaxy (on the outer fringes) has likely played a role in our planet's survival. The habitable planet's location in the solar system, the specific composition of the home star and surrounding planets, the presence of a magnetosphere, the presence of plate tectonics, the presence of stable, liquid water over a sufficient period of time, etc etc are all factors contributing directly to our existence, and we can see whether those factors are common throughout the galaxy.

Even our galaxy's position in the universe (standing nearly-alone in a large void) is a factor in earth's long-term survival.


Two things:

One, this still doesn't prove whether Betty had access to that information before hand.

Two, the drawing is crude enough that -- given the vast number of stars in our local area, as you yourself have pointed out -- there's a not-zero chance that Mrs. Fish simply got a lucky match based on the painstaking research (read: constantly pouring over every conceivable permutation).

We have megaliths that line up with stellar phenomenon. Looking up at the stars and drawing pictures is clearly not a new phenomenon.
Chances are those megaliths are purposefully lined up.

and

"in November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars."
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Chances are those megaliths are purposefully lined up.
Yes, that's my point. Humans clearly have the ability to observe the stars and recognize patterns since we've been doing it for millennia.

There's no extraterrestrial force needed to produce her pictures

and

"in November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars."
So the numbers are worse than 400 billion. It's probably more like 11 billion. And of those, how many have water? Let's say 1 billion, which is generous. Of those, how many have a sufficient atmosphere to support the growth of life? Let's say 1 million. Out of those million, how many have enough local elemental raw materials to support complex life? We can keep chipping away at your large numbers in this way, with scientific evidence backup up each caveat. I'm only parroting an idea that has been around since at least the book Rare Earth, and probably before that too.

The scientific... "optimism" regarding life on other planets has a lot of evidence going against it. The optimism for sentient life on other planets has even more evidence going against it, which is why I said earlier in the thread this question is more about your paradigm and less about the body of science we currently have access to.

Everyone is happy to assert without evidence "since we are not alone in the universe, what does that mean?"
No one wants to ask "since we are alone, what does that mean?"

I would be just as justified in saying "Look at how many billions of galaxies are out there. I can't fathom a reality where that is all random and accidental. There must be a Creator who made that".
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
Yes, that's my point. Humans clearly have the ability to observe the stars and recognize patterns since we've been doing it for millennia.

There's no extraterrestrial force needed to produce her pictures
But a bloody big telescope, a great memory, and the ability to fabricate under hypnosis would help.

and


So the numbers are worse than 400 billion. It's probably more like 11 billion. And of those, how many have water? Let's say 1 billion, which is generous. Of those, how many have a sufficient atmosphere to support the growth of life? Let's say 1 million. Out of those million, how many have enough local elemental raw materials to support complex life? We can keep chipping away at your large numbers in this way, with scientific evidence backup up each caveat. I'm only parroting an idea that has been around since at least the book Rare Earth, and probably before that too.
These are measurable facts from 10+ years after Rare Earth was published "earth sized planets" "in the Goldilocks zone" "an earth-like Sun" you can't dismiss up to date science based on assumptions in a book from the past, science and understanding are not static. If Mars has plate tectonics, it's pretty certain that that is a common characteristic of rocky planets of a certain size, for obvious reasons. Water is on mars and several moons throughout our solar system, it's a pretty basic molecule. Comets are made of ice and dust.. Mass spectrometry tells us the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere. Water is likely to be everywhere in the universe. I'll take probability and recent discovery side on this one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Romulus

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
But a bloody big telescope, a great memory, and the ability to fabricate under hypnosis would help.

These are measurable facts from 10+ years after Rare Earth was published "earth sized planets" "in the Goldilocks zone" "an earth-like Sun" you can't dismiss up to date science based on assumptions in a book from the past, science and understanding are not static.
Have you read the book? It focuses very little on statistics and focused more on the specific factors that likely contribute to the long-term habitability of a given planet. Some of these factors I listed.

If Mars has plate tectonics, it's pretty certain that that is a common characteristic of rocky planets of a certain size, for obvious reasons. Water is on mars and several moons throughout our solar system, it's a pretty basic molecule. Comets are made of ice and dust.. Mass spectrometry tells us the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere. Water is likely to be everywhere in the universe. I'll take probability and recent discovery side on this one.
You are actually choosing to ignore facts that contradict your assumptions, then. There's a difference between ice on mars and liquid oceans. There's a difference between ice on Mars for the last million years or the last 500 million years.

If we are talking about abiogenesis, the only location in the universe with a set of stable conditions over several billions of years is earth, as far as we know. It's not merely about the presence of water, it's about the presence of water over hundreds of millions of years. It's not merely about plate tectonics, it's about plate tectonics that are neither too slow nor too violent. It's about having enough surface impacts to distribute sufficient water (according to some theories) while not having so many surface impacts that it wipes out all the progress of life up to that point. It's about having a thick enough atmosphere to contain respirable gasses, but not so thick that the planet overheats, like Venus. All of these factors add up.

So if you want to play the game of "there are so many planets" as evidence for life, it is fair for me to play the game of "there are so many variables", especially since we have far more concrete data on that topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
Have you read the book? It focuses very little on statistics and focused more on the specific factors that likely contribute to the long-term habitability of a given planet. Some of these factors I listed.


You are actually choosing to ignore facts that contradict your assumptions, then. There's a difference between ice on mars and liquid oceans. There's a difference between ice on Mars for the last million years or the last 500 million years.

If we are talking about abiogenesis, the only location in the universe with a set of stable conditions over several billions of years is earth, as far as we know. It's not merely about the presence of water, it's about the presence of water over hundreds of millions of years. It's not merely about plate tectonics, it's about plate tectonics that are neither too slow nor too violent. It's about having enough surface impacts to distribute sufficient water (according to some theories) while not having so many surface impacts that it wipes out all the progress of life up to that point. It's about having a thick enough atmosphere to contain respirable gasses, but not so thick that the planet overheats, like Venus. All of these factors add up.

So if you want to play the game of "there are so many planets" as evidence for life, it is fair for me to play the game of "there are so many variables", especially since we have far more concrete data on that topic.
I'm going to lunch now, so I'll briefly say that liquid water was abundant on Mars in it's past, and is today below the surface of Europa, that makes 3 bodies in our solar system. I'm going with probability again.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm going to lunch now, so I'll briefly say that liquid water was abundant on Mars in it's past, and is today below the surface of Europa, that makes 3 bodies in our solar system. I'm going with probability again.
This simplified view doesn't address what I specifically brought up. Mars had a body of water for how long, and how large? What else was in the water? These questions are just a few out of numerous factors (that we know of, of course) for the long-term sustainability of life.

Might as well say "this planet has a lot of carbon, and life forms are carbon-based, so checkmate unbelievers". Science doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
This simplified view doesn't address what I specifically brought up. Mars had a body of water for how long, and how large? What else was in the water? These questions are just a few out of numerous factors (that we know of, of course) for the long-term sustainability of life.

Might as well say "this planet has a lot of carbon, and life forms are carbon-based, so checkmate unbelievers". Science doesn't work that way.
Dude, I'm being simplistic because this is a forum. When it comes to science the most probable is the most likely. We've been doing it for long enough.

Here, https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/september/biggest-river-delta-ever-discovered-on-mars-hints-at-ocean.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7cmu056A5QIVWofVCh1D4QcsEAAYASAAEgLCz_D_BwE

Elements will be largely the same across the universe, I don't know what you are expecting.
 

Stiflers Mom

Member
Apr 27, 2012
2,970
481
815
The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.

But all of our empirical evidence points to the opposite. We know that earth's position in the galaxy (on the outer fringes) has likely played a role in our planet's survival. The habitable planet's location in the solar system, the specific composition of the home star and surrounding planets, the presence of a magnetosphere, the presence of plate tectonics, the presence of stable, liquid water over a sufficient period of time, etc etc are all factors contributing directly to our existence, and we can see whether those factors are common throughout the galaxy.

Even our galaxy's position in the universe (standing nearly-alone in a large void) is a factor in earth's long-term survival.
What I wanted to write..
If you go by all of these factors, there isn't really much left.
Half of the star systems are binary, which prohibits life.
It's very probable that the life friendly conditions we have on earth are extremely rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,388
2,731
585
What I wanted to write..
If you go by all of these factors, there isn't really much left.
Half of the star systems are binary, which prohibits life.
It's very probable that the life friendly conditions we have on earth are extremely rare.
Extremely rare doesn't mean 1 in 400 billion
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insane Metal

jason10mm

Member
Feb 3, 2009
1,105
33
800
It's all bs. You what disappeared completely when high res cell phone cameras became ubiquitous?

UFO sightings, bigfoot, loch ness, all that stuff.

Those things thrived on bad photos/video. Now that cameras are EVERYWHERE it's all gone away...hmmmmmmm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ikutachi

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
809
642
315
I have never once in my life seen or heard anything that indicated that there are aliens, or something paranormal..

(well, except on DMT, but that is another story)
I think the main point should be what technology are these craft using! It is not conventional jet powered tech.