Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[Moontanman]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

One thing about what John Oliver said - “we don’t know what it is” is an answer, and whatever label you attach (UFO, UAP) saying it’s unidentified is an answer. There isn’t enough information to make an identification. 

And he notes that “a rigorous, evidence-based, data-driven scientific framework is essential” which is what I’ve been saying. This has to be treated on equal footing as any other bit of science. Conclusions have to be derived from the evidence. You need better data.

 

 

The scientific community in the USA, or to be more precise, the scientific community that depends on the US gov for funding, needs to support the scientific study and stop the suppression of studying the phenomena. The suppression of scientific inquiry of UAP needs to stop. I know you keep saying that all I have is anecdotal evidence of this.

I have however pointed out instances that strongly indicate this, the systemic suppression of information is all but impossible to prove with one incident. The institutionalized suppression of the study of UFOs is part of the very institution that is tasked with the suppression and the study of UAP by the US gov... I am well aware this is classic "conspiracy theory" territory but... just because its a conspiracy theory doesn't mean its not a real conspiracy. 

It could very well be the suppression has to do with military secretes but at some point even military secretes no longer need to be secretes. Secrecy has become more important than the secretes it protects and this need to keep secretes just for the sake of keeping secretes has IMHO contributed greatly to the obfuscation of the issue. 

My first suggestion to a path towards truth is to stop suppressing secretes for the sake of secrecy!  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The scientific community in the USA, or to be more precise, the scientific community that depends on the US gov for funding, needs to support the scientific study and stop the suppression of studying the phenomena. The suppression of scientific inquiry of UAP needs to stop. I know you keep saying that all I have is anecdotal evidence of this.

I have however pointed out instances that strongly indicate this, the systemic suppression of information is all but impossible to prove with one incident. The institutionalized suppression of the study of UFOs is part of the very institution that is tasked with the suppression and the study of UAP by the US gov... I am well aware this is classic "conspiracy theory" territory but... just because its a conspiracy theory doesn't mean its not a real conspiracy. 

It could very well be the suppression has to do with military secretes but at some point even military secretes no longer need to be secretes. Secrecy has become more important than the secretes it protects and this need to keep secretes just for the sake of keeping secretes has IMHO contributed greatly to the obfuscation of the issue. 

My first suggestion to a path towards truth is to stop suppressing secretes for the sake of secrecy!  

How is it that the US is suppressing inquiry outside the US?

In France, for example? How is the US interfering in those inquiries?

[Moontanman]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is it that the US is suppressing inquiry outside the US?

In France, for example? How is the US interfering in those inquiries?

I didn't suggest the US was doing that, in fact other countries are pursuing this puzzle independant of the USA, France being an example. 

There have been some claims that the USA has influenced other countries, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada are often used as examples but I cannot confirm that. 

[TheVat]

One of Oliver's best reports.   Re secrecy, my feeling has long been (based on endlessly recurring news of government leaks) that the federal government is incredibly bad at keeping secrets and couldn't maintain a decades-long conspiracy if their lives depended on it.  At best, they draw across a veil that's supposed to be a blackout curtain and only achieve a smudgy shower door.  If nothing else were to leak on a particular investigation, allow some time passing and glitches in chain of command and you will get bureaucratic bungling.  Or an Ed Snowden.  Or both.  

[Moontanman]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

One of Oliver's best reports.   Re secrecy, my feeling has long been (based on endlessly recurring news of government leaks) that the federal government is incredibly bad at keeping secrets and couldn't maintain a decades-long conspiracy if their lives depended on it.  At best, they draw across a veil that's supposed to be a blackout curtain and only achieve a smudgy shower door.  If nothing else were to leak on a particular investigation, allow some time passing and glitches in chain of command and you will get bureaucratic bungling.  Or an Ed Snowden.  Or both.  

There have been a great many leaks in this "secret" but they are all assumed to be bs because they are often so damn weird... as though leaks about aliens wouldn't almost certainly be weird by definition. 

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I didn't suggest the US was doing that, in fact other countries are pursuing this puzzle independant of the USA, France being an example. 

There have been some claims that the USA has influenced other countries, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada are often used as examples but I cannot confirm that. 

So the US could only be suppressing some small fraction of sightings, if they are randomly distributed. 

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

So the US could only be suppressing some small fraction of sightings, if they are randomly distributed. 

Yes

Depends really on how much influence the US has world wide on the issue, I have no way to accurately quantify that, some countries have no real means or interest and defer to larger countries. I think there is reason to think the US has considerable influence on the stance other countries take on the issue.

Other countries have their own agendas at the very least but "yes", generally the US has limited influence around the world even if that limit can be quite high in some circles. The US is not all powerful but the US does have considerable influence over smaller countries on many issues. 

It has long been said the US has significant influence on Central and South American countries in this area. Reports that indicate that investigations are often run by the US military in these countries but confirming that is problematic at best.  

NATO is also supposed to tow the party line but France would be an outlier if that is true. 

 

[Eise]

@Moontanman

I wonder why you buy so much into 'aliens' and 'government secrecy'.

First, on physical grounds, it is extremely, nearly impossible, that aliens visit us. Special Relativity sets a clear limit to travel speed. G-forces, and collisions with dust particles set high limits. Of course, slowly travelling, with generation spaceships cannot be excluded, as von Neumann probes (but then its not aliens visiting us, but their probes, that should be able to navigate autonomously, find out by themselves what is interesting, etc). Simply said, it needs a lot of additional hypothesis that we even do not know are possible.

Second, most of the UFO sighting have earthly explanations. Reaching from simple explanations (Venus, Jupiter and Mars), weather phenomena, satellites, (experimental) planes, weather (and solar!) balloons, etc), to sightings that cannot be explained, but even the latter does not mean 'aliens!' 'Unexplained' means unexplained, nothing more. Not very satisfying of course, but it is as it is.

Third, UFO sightings tend to come in crazes: one fascinating UFO sighting, and often it is followed suddenly by many more UFO sightings. For me a clear indication, that people are more inclined to 'look up', and then immediately take the most improbable explanation: aliens, or even worse, an alien invasion is imminent.

Fourth, for government secrets, there is a pretty simple explanation: when they are doing experiments with 'flying objects' they might be interested in people that do not pay too much attention to anomalous flying objects. This is at least my explanation for Edward Condon's very unscientific approach. Just deny that they exist, declare that all UFO sightings are fully explainable, and all observers will only think 'hey, funny what I see there, but it cannot be UFOs, because they do not exist'. That backfired of course completely, and only contributed to conspiracy theories.

Fifth, a whole lot of people just want 'aliens!' to be true. They do not want to falsify (in the Popperian sense of the word) the alien hypothesis, they take every unusual sighting as confirmation of their belief, even if there are simple explanations. The solar balloon sighting, and the reactions on Youtube are great examples. The huge majority says 'aliens!, then come many with secret flying things from the Air Force, (or NASA), and then only very few come with trying to find earthly explanations, and veeeery few with the correct explanation. And nobody reacts on these correct explanations. There is no rational discourse at all.

Considering all this, the question is if UFOs are a legitimate research object for science. You maybe surprised, but my answer is 'yes'. But first all these explainable sightings must be filtered out, and there must be tangible proof. And it should be serious researchers, not Loebs, who are the pseudo-scientific variants of alien believers.

[Moontanman]

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

@Moontanman

I wonder why you buy so much into 'aliens' and 'government secrecy'.

I do not buy into aliens, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify an ongoing program to investigate this phenomena. Government secrecy is a given, the only question is why. 

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

First, on physical grounds, it is extremely, nearly impossible, that aliens visit us. Special Relativity sets a clear limit to travel speed. G-forces, and collisions with dust particles set high limits. Of course, slowly travelling, with generation spaceships cannot be excluded, as von Neumann probes (but then its not aliens visiting us, but their probes, that should be able to navigate autonomously, find out by themselves what is interesting, etc). Simply said, it needs a lot of additional hypothesis that we even do not know are possible.

"Nearly impossible" these two words negate this argument completely!

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Second, most of the UFO sighting have earthly explanations. Reaching from simple explanations (Venus, Jupiter and Mars), weather phenomena, satellites, (experimental) planes, weather (and solar!) balloons, etc), to sightings that cannot be explained, but even the latter does not mean 'aliens!' 'Unexplained' means unexplained, nothing more. Not very satisfying of course, but it is as it is.

Does unexplained mean mean investigate no further? 

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Third, UFO sightings tend to come in crazes: one fascinating UFO sighting, and often it is followed suddenly by many more UFO sightings. For me a clear indication, that people are more inclined to 'look up', and then immediately take the most improbable explanation: aliens, or even worse, an alien invasion is imminent.

Again, what is your point? Are you trying to say that because crazies exist UAP must be created by crazies?

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Fourth, for government secrets, there is a pretty simple explanation: when they are doing experiments with 'flying objects' they might be interested in people that do not pay too much attention to anomalous flying objects. This is at least my explanation for Edward Condon's very unscientific approach. Just deny that they exist, declare that all UFO sightings are fully explainable, and all observers will only think 'hey, funny what I see there, but it cannot be UFOs, because they do not exist'. That backfired of course completely, and only contributed to conspiracy theories.

Your opinion is no better than mine or anyone else's. 

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Fifth, a whole lot of people just want 'aliens!' to be true. They do not want to falsify (in the Popperian sense of the word) the alien hypothesis, they take every unusual sighting as confirmation of their belief, even if there are simple explanations. The solar balloon sighting, and the reactions on Youtube are great examples. The huge majority says 'aliens!, then come many with secret flying things from the Air Force, (or NASA), and then only very few come with trying to find earthly explanations, and veeeery few with the correct explanation. And nobody reacts on these correct explanations. There is no rational discourse at all.

So because there are people who want aliens to be real the whole phenomena should be ignored? 

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Considering all this, the question is if UFOs are a legitimate research object for science. You maybe surprised, but my answer is 'yes'. But first all these explainable sightings must be filtered out, and there must be tangible proof. And it should be serious researchers, not Loebs, who are the pseudo-scientific variants of alien believers.

This is no more than I have been suggesting all along, legitimate research is needed!

I think you owe Avi Loeb an apology, Avi being labeled a crack pot over this just confirms the gist of my claims of ridicule. If the man made a mistake does he deserve to labeled a crack pot? If he had misidentified a an astronomical phenomena not associated with UAP would the label crack pot have been applied?  

You come across as someone who has made up their mind that there is nothing to this phenomena other than crazies and crackpots. You have not looked into the evidence we currently have other than a cursory glance and simply tow the party line that there is nothing to the phenomena other than a bunch of crazies running around trying to get attention and create chaos. 

I would suggest you do a little bit of research to see how far from the point of this you really are. 

There really are reports that are inexplicable and not because of a lack of data... in fact some reports have an embarrassing amount of data and the US gov response is often deceptive and down right silly, often as unbelievable as aliens. 

Even one confirmed sighting would be a profound event in human history, can we really afford to ignore to ignore this? 

I could list a bunch of sightings that are in the inexplicable files but I've already done that over and over here only to see remarks that assume the reports are hoaxes "looks like a hub cap thrown through the air" is especially irksome as though that is a realistic critique of a photo that has been investigated by real scientists and found to be real if not explained. 

Its tiresome to have to deal with people who think I must be a crazy simply because I do not buy into the idea of aliens being a possible explanation of some percentage of reports as impossible. 

 The 1952 Washington DC "Merry go round" is a prime example, it may have very well been two weekends of crazies driving the narrative but the actual reports suggest otherwise, in fact old photo graphic plates from Mount Palomar Observatory at that time caught three lights that could have been as close as Earth orbit.

I am going to post a short video about this, it has the appropriate scientific papers listed as the sources for this info. It has to do with the capture of anomalous lights outside of Earth's atmosphere during the sightings in DC in 1952. These plates were found in an reinvestigation of old photos from Mt Palomar, of course the photos are not conclusive but they are another indication of something unusual going on those two weekends in July. 

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3i4ozTjcR0

If you want to understand this phenomena you have to climb down the rabbit hole, you have to look at the good the bad and the ugly, you cannot view this from the clouds and expect to see the rabbit. 

 

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Does unexplained mean mean investigate no further? 

No more than it means the unexplained is worthless...

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

"Nearly impossible" these two words negate this argument completely!

I took @Eise to mean that the technological requirements and durations of trips make them low probability events.  I am not sure if nearly impossible is how I would put that, though.  Where sentient life develops specific goals (of which we humans have a very limited sample), low probability events can be pushed towards much higher frequency.  For me, the scientific view is to remain neutral on what other sentient creatures may want or seek.

Was there another thread where we talked about the photo plates from 1952?  I have to go AFK atm, but maybe worth linking to.

[Moontanman]

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I took @Eise to mean that the technological requirements and durations of trips make them low probability events.  I am not sure if nearly impossible is how I would put that, though.  Where sentient life develops specific goals (of which we humans have a very limited sample), low probability events can be pushed towards much higher frequency.  For me, the scientific view is to remain neutral on what other sentient creatures may want or seek.

Was there another thread where we talked about the photo plates from 1952?  I have to go AFK atm, but maybe worth linking to.

I looked I couldn't find a dedicated thread, it might have been mentioned before in this or another thread. 

Predicting what aliens might do or might not do is a fools errand. I have my doubts that a "UFP" exists someplace but even a probe could be the source of all our sightings. Probes could take thousands of years to arrive ad then start to "print out" various machines and drones to explore even create biological beings from scratch to colonise the Kuiper belt if they wanted to. 

Almost anything becomes possible if controlled hydrogen fusion is possible.  

Edited May 1 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

I especially like this last bit of discussion. Great summary by @Eise.  Nice response by @Moontanman. @TheVatclarifying the subtleties. 

These discussions often seem to fall apart I believe due to the reputation of many alien advocates, and the lack of hard evidence. Given all the crazies out there and the lack of meat available for scientists to sink their teeth into, it is hard to have a good discussion around what we do know, what we can investigate, and whether it is worth the effort.

While Moon is more interested in the possibilities than the average person on this site, I have never seen him dip his toes into the crazies waters.

While I don't participate in this topic much, I do enjoy following it.

[Eise]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again, what is your point? Are you trying to say that because crazies exist UAP must be created by crazies?

Sorry, here is a language confusion. I did not mean 'crazies'. I have looked up the word from the Dutch- English dictionary ('craze'). What I mean is something like the short popularity of a phenomenon: something similar to the short popularity of 'fudget spinners'. In this case: there is some news footage about UFOs, a short time afterwards they are being seen everywhere, and then it ebbs away. I am not a native English speaker, so apology for the confusion.

But hey, there are people talking about 'secretes', and one moment I thought that would be great: if we find a secrete and it turns out that it can't be from earth, then we have some evidence in our hands. But of course I recognised that Moon meant 'secrets'. My wording was of course more prone to wrong interpretation. 

Only one other thing, that I wonder about again and again: it is 'one phenomenon', 'more phenomena'. That's not just you, Moon, I see it everywhere.

Longer reaction on the contents of your reaction hopefully tomorrow, but I wanted to have this point out of the way,

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Sorry, here is a language confusion. I did not mean 'crazies'. I have looked up the word from the Dutch- English dictionary ('craze'). What I mean is something like the short popularity of a phenomenon: something similar to the short popularity of 'fudget spinners'. In this case: there is some news footage about UFOs, a short time afterwards they are being seen everywhere, and then it ebbs away. I am not a native English speaker, so apology for the confusion.

But hey, there are people talking about 'secretes', and one moment I thought that would be great: if we find a secrete and it turns out that it can't be from earth, then we have some evidence in our hands. But of course I recognised that Moon meant 'secrets'. My wording was of course more prone to wrong interpretation. 

Only one other thing, that I wonder about again and again: it is 'one phenomenon', 'more phenomena'. That's not just you, Moon, I see it everywhere.

Longer reaction on the contents of your reaction hopefully tomorrow, but I wanted to have this point out of the way,

You do make a point, even in UFO literature the idea of UFO sightings coming in groups called "flaps" and it has long been known that one UFO sighting is often followed by many more in that area. 

The 1952 Washington DC sightings were two weekends in a row and were just the last few sightings of a "flap" that had been moving down the east coast for days or weeks before July 19th weekend and the following weekend. 

As for phenomena and phenomenon the former is plural the later is singular... I guess phenomena is the entire set of sightings and phenomenon would be an individual sighting? 

[MigL]

I didn't want to get in on this, simply because serious discussion lends 'credibility' to the UFO are aliens argument.

On 5/1/2024 at 9:16 AM, Moontanman said:

There really are reports that are inexplicable and not because of a lack of data...

There are many things that are inexplicable, and the vast majority are not even related to UAPs.
And just as with the 'alien visitation' believers, there is an even larger group of people who are sure they know the reason for this larger set of unexplainable phenomena.
You yourself, Moon, would call these people religious fanatics, and you'd be the last person to point out a need for scientific research to investigate God.
The fact that something is currently inexplicable does not grant freedom to 'make up' a cause.

And as with religion, this is my opinion.

Given the physical limitations on travel between star systems, I really cannot understand the reasoning ( and expenditure of resources ) why aliens would visit us, play cat and mouse games, and anally probe a few hicks in the Southern US 😄 ( sorry, I had to throw that in ).

Edited May 2 by MigL

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I didn't want to get in on this, simply because serious discussion lends 'credibility' to the UFO are aliens argument.

There are many things that are inexplicable, and the vast majority are not even related to UAPs.
And just as with the 'alien visitation' believers, there is an even larger group of people who are sure they know the reason for this larger set of unexplainable phenomena.
You yourself, Moon, would call these people religious fanatics, and you'd be the last person to point out a need for scientific research to investigate God.
The fact that something is currently inexplicable does not grant freedom to 'make up' a cause.

And as with religion, this is my opinion.

Given the physical limitations on travel between star systems, I really cannot understand the reasoning ( and expenditure of resources ) why aliens would visit us, play cat and mouse games, and anally probe a few hicks in the Southern US 😄 ( sorry, I had to throw that in ).

You are making the error of UFP thinking, as though the only viable way to visit us is by a ship that carries aliens here in some short time frame and the aliens then explore our solar system. 

This is highly improbable, more likely Von Neumann Probes would be sent out all over the galaxy. Such a probe could manufacture all the probes we see and even biological beings. This solves the distance, time, and resource constraints and makes much more sense than sending manned space craft actors the galaxy. Of course this is just my personal speculations and has no weight other than speculations.  

As for the amount of data, you miss my point, for many years the Air Force tried to say that UFO sightings were only unidentified due to a lack of data. Then documents were released that said in fact that some sightings were inexplicable despite have huge amounts of data. 

This is the reason its important to say that these sightings can be unexplained despite large amounts of data. The amount of data cannot be used to dismiss or confirm this phenomena. 

@MigL I understand that its difficult to step outside your world view and even look at things you have been taught to dismiss out of hand. From what I've seen on here you don't strike me as the type to simply ignore this because "It can't be true" syndrome.  

I don't follow the UFO phenomenon because I'm a crazy nut case, its because I found out that, for what ever reason, UFO sightings were being misrepresented by the government for reasons unknown. If no one was affected by this ie it was just something that is unimportant, then I would see no reason to pursue this.

But it is important, in fact the existence of aliens would be the most important thing the human race has discovered in modern times possibly for all times.  

Not looking at the available data will not change the data or the direction that data indicates. 

If you won't look at the data then don't, I have admitted that with current understanding of how science works then no data we currently have can be said to be significant and no matter how hard we try until a alien probe lands on the white house lawn in full view of a scientist with instruments nothing can be said to be "scientific data" I think this is really not true and in fact I think we have data that is equal to data in the same way that is accepted by scientists as long as its not about UFOs. 

UFO, the very idea of what the term indicates poisons the well for some people. The old saw of "It can't be aliens, due to some supposed impossibility like distance or time. These are not impediments to technology, only biology and only then if you insist on a Star Trek like universe. 

Yes the data so far falls far short of scientific rigor but exactly how would such data be collected with out knowing when a UFO is going to appear? 

There are reports that IMHO qualify as significant evidence but evidently looking at them is not worth anyone's time. I personally think that is sad... I think it hearkens back to when "science" refused to even consider stones fell from the sky... imagine that. 

Here is an example of significant data.

http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_fsr_16_3_2_70.pdf

 

[MigL]

The most basic purpose of life, any life on any planet, is to reproduce.

I can see generational starships spreading a race through an area of our galaxy, or even probes that deliver embryonic life to other star systems, but what is the purpose of your Von Neumann probes ?
They can't gather and return information to the sender, as that would take twice as long as the journey to get here.
So why would any advanced civilization undertake such a project that may return information outdated by millennia, or not return any at all.
For any civilization to advance to a level of interstellar travel, they would need to use concepts like effort/benefit analysis, otherwise they would have made stupid decisions, and not advanced to such a level.
And sorry, but sending probes that don't return information, or return it 10 000 years out of date, seems like a stupid undertaking to me.

The second part of your post reminds me of the time travel problem ...
"Time travel is impossible because no one, from a future where they have time travel, has ever been seen."

For all you know, your UAPs might be from the future, instead of from other star systems; how would you differentiate between the two ?
And why do you consider one choice more likely than the other ?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The old saw of "It can't be aliens, due to some supposed impossibility like distance or time. These are not impediments to technology, only biology and only then if you insist on a Star Trek like universe. 

A Star Trek universe - not shackled by certain elements of relativity like time dilation and having c as a speed limit - would make aliens a more likely explanation. Nobody arguing from a science perspective is insisting on a Star Trek like universe. 

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

The most basic purpose of life, any life on any planet, is to reproduce.

I can see generational starships spreading a race through an area of our galaxy, or even probes that deliver embryonic life to other star systems, but what is the purpose of your Von Neumann probes ?
They can't gather and return information to the sender, as that would take twice as long as the journey to get here.
So why would any advanced civilization undertake such a project that may return information outdated by millennia, or not return any at all.
For any civilization to advance to a level of interstellar travel, they would need to use concepts like effort/benefit analysis, otherwise they would have made stupid decisions, and not advanced to such a level.
And sorry, but sending probes that don't return information, or return it 10 000 years out of date, seems like a stupid undertaking to me.

The second part of your post reminds me of the time travel problem ...
"Time travel is impossible because no one, from a future where they have time travel, has ever been seen."

For all you know, your UAPs might be from the future, instead of from other star systems; how would you differentiate between the two ?
And why do you consider one choice more likely than the other ?

Again, I do not assert UAP are aliens, they are unidentified, aliens is just one remote possibility, time travelers have been suggested as a possible explanation but I have my doubts about time travel as I am sure most people do. They could be visitors from another plane of existence, or as Jacques Vallée has suggested, quite seriously, that the UFO phenomena is connected with things like fairies, gnomes, and other supposed supernatural creatures from lore. The most obvious thing here is that UAP are just misidentification of known or unknown natural objects but the best data we have doesn't support that premise in many cases... it is these outliers that concern me. 

And no, "It could have been a picture of a hubcap someone threw", is not a viable explanation. 

As for alien motivations... you make a good point if you are talking about a civilization that is only a few thousand years since it lived in caves. A civilization that has existed for millions of years might have more long-term goals and data can be transmitted at the speed of light. 

Trying to guess the motivations of aliens is not a winning gambit.  

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Trying to guess the motivations of aliens is not a winning gambit.  

Indeed, trying to guess where they came from is a lot easier...

[Moontanman]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

A Star Trek universe - not shackled by certain elements of relativity like time dilation and having c as a speed limit - would make aliens a more likely explanation. Nobody arguing from a science perspective is insisting on a Star Trek like universe. 

Actually yes they are, the idea that aliens are just like us in the needs, wants, and desires department is exactly what Star Trek thinking is, the magical technology is just window dressing for what is essentially just a human story. All we can hope to do is detect the presence of aliens in our solar system, the whys of the issue will have to be answered by any aliens should they prove to exist.

 

My main concern at this time is that the presence of aliens is being ignored for reasons unknown or intentionally covered up for reasons unknown... I know it smacks of conspiracy theory but just because its a conspiracy doesn't mean its not happening. 

If it is just the gov trying to keep their military secrets then why are they still grimly hanging on to "secrets" from before WW2? If it was just protecting military secrets then revealing them as they lose their reason for being secrete would be a great way to show this whole thing as bs. It would be quite simple to point out that supposed sightings from the 50s could be explained by pointing out the outdated secrete that was being protected by denying a particular sighting. 

Edward James Ruppelt , director of project Blue Book, has been quoted as saying (not a direct quote) that both Project Sign and Project Grudge were overtly biased and politicized noting that in these investigations doing the standard investigations normally means an unbiased evaluation of intelligence data but it doesn't take a great deal of study of the old UFO files to see the standard intelligence procedures were not being followed by Project Grudge (it should be pointed out that Project Sign came to the conclusion that at least some UFOs were interplanetary space craft) Everything was being evaluated on the premise of UFOs (aliens) cannot exist and no matter what you see or hear do not believe it! 

I still feel its necessary to point out that the US gov is not the end all be all of UFO sightings info, other world governments give the alien hypothesis more credence than the US does at this time but most do tow the US party line.  

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, trying to guess where they came from is a lot easier...

That would be just as silly. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

As for alien motivations... you make a good point if you are talking about a civilization that is only a few thousand years since it lived in caves. A civilization that has existed for millions of years might have more long-term goals and data can be transmitted at the speed of light. 

I was going to reply similarly - a Kardashev scale II or III civilization could do more with Von Neuman devices than we could.  At that point, a probability analysis shifts from the rigors/cost of crossing interstellar space to how likely is a K2 or above society.  An analysis for which data (that we puny humans could access) is lacking.  

In any case, I agree the probability of a VN seeded galaxy seems much higher than ET biological entities in ships that play peekaboo and have well-stocked proctology clinics.  (though given healthcare costs in the States, could anyone complain about being snatched up for a free endoscopy session?)

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I was going to reply similarly - a Kardashev scale II or III civilization could do more with Von Neuman devices than we could.  At that point, a probability analysis shifts from the rigors/cost of crossing interstellar space to how likely is a K2 or above society.  An analysis for which data (that we puny humans could access) is lacking.  

In any case, I agree the probability of a VN seeded galaxy seems much higher than ET biological entities in ships that play peekaboo and have well-stocked proctology clinics.  (though given healthcare costs in the States, could anyone complain about being snatched up for a free endoscopy session?)

I just had an endoscopy session... I can't say why so many people seem to enjoy claiming to have had one extra clinically. 

 

Edited May 3 by Moontanman

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Actually yes they are, the idea that aliens are just like us in the needs, wants, and desires department is exactly what Star Trek thinking is, the magical technology is just window dressing for what is essentially just a human story. All we can hope to do is detect the presence of aliens in our solar system, the whys of the issue will have to be answered by any aliens should they prove to exist.

What prompts you to think this? AFAICT detection of aliens has little to do with their motivations.