Do you believe in aliens and UFOs?

1910111214

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2023 Posts: 7,547
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    The James Webb Space Telescope is already identifying eco-plantets that have the possible chemistry, atmospheres and water signatures to potentially support life. We're only 70 plus years into space exploration, so, if ETs are thousand, even hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than us, then, of course they would have identified and found there worlds, like Earth, that support life.

    Like-Earth, maybe, but I still think you’re underestimating the sheer size of a practically infinitely large universe. The sheer odds of one of these thousands of years more advanced ETs being even remotely in the vicinity of the vicinity of us are so staggeringly low that even if they do exist, which I grant maybe they do, even with time and space bending technology we can assume they have, it’s next to infinitely unlikely they’d point themselves in the right direction let alone reach us.

    Super open to being wrong of course but I think if you think logically rather than idealistically, advanced aliens from elsewhere in the universe simply have not flown over to us.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/

    :))
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Wormholes, Nick - fold space and cut out all the vast inbetween bit between the two points. Summat like that, anyway!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Venutius wrote: »
    Wormholes, Nick - fold space and cut out all the vast inbetween bit between the two points. Summat like that, anyway!

    Those aliens always manage to worm themselves in somewhere.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Venutius wrote: »
    Wormholes, Nick - fold space and cut out all the vast inbetween bit between the two points. Summat like that, anyway!

    I understand, and I mentioned time and space bending technology that can cover great distances, but they still have to specifically hit us, and again, practically infinitely sized universe, practically infinitely long odds we’d be the planet they’d visit EVEN if they’re able to detect planets with civilized life. People I feel like just can’t comprehend how big the universe is. Infinitely low probability.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/

    Haha yes I think I described why quite adequately:
    Yes to both because I believe that they both exist. But usually when people ask “do you believe in aliens and ufos”, what they’re really asking is “do you believe aliens and ufos have visited earth”, which is no.
  • Posts: 1,859
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I've deeply researched UFO and abduction cases for 4 years now for a TV project I'm developing. I've spoken to dozens of witnesses, including an RAF pilot, who was sent to intercept an unknown object showing on the base's radar which he said was hovering at 7,000 feet and was at least 200 feet in diameter, metallic, completely smooth surface, which shot straight up through the clouds - at extraordinary speed - as he flew towards it. An ex-policeman, who saw a diamond shaped craft. An English teacher who, while on a country walk alone, saw a large metallic disc just above the trees, and then lost over 2 hours of time she still cannot account for, and three builders who all saw a disc shaped craft above a lake in Surrey while driving in their van to work at 5.30am in 1997. All respectable and professional people who risked ridicule and, in the cases of the pilot and the ex-policeman, their careers by speaking out about their experiences. I also have a top UFO specialist, who once worked for the MOD investigating UFOs, as my project's consultant. Do I believe we are being visited by other intelligences - 100% I do.

    I worked on the TV mini series "Intruders" in the nineties and what I learned during that project convinced me that, we are NOT alone.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/

    Haha yes I think I described why quite adequately:
    Yes to both because I believe that they both exist. But usually when people ask “do you believe in aliens and ufos”, what they’re really asking is “do you believe aliens and ufos have visited earth”, which is no.

    I see. That's fair enough. A kind of politicians' diplomatic answer! :)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/

    Haha yes I think I described why quite adequately:
    Yes to both because I believe that they both exist. But usually when people ask “do you believe in aliens and ufos”, what they’re really asking is “do you believe aliens and ufos have visited earth”, which is no.

    I see. That's fair enough. A kind of politicians' diplomatic answer! :)

    Haha I can see that!

    I consider myself to be quite open minded, and certainly haven’t see what others have seen. I think it would be pretty awesome to encounter another advanced civilization.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    So yes to both but no to both? :-/

    Haha yes I think I described why quite adequately:
    Yes to both because I believe that they both exist. But usually when people ask “do you believe in aliens and ufos”, what they’re really asking is “do you believe aliens and ufos have visited earth”, which is no.

    I see. That's fair enough. A kind of politicians' diplomatic answer! :)

    Haha I can see that!

    I consider myself to be quite open minded, and certainly haven’t see what others have seen. I think it would be pretty awesome to encounter another advanced civilization.

    Being open minded is certainly a great asset in life and it can only be a good thing. It makes us challenge received wisdom and not rest on our laurels and become complacent in our views on all manner of things. It's important not to make assumptions on any complex topic such as this as a lot of what we think we know is wrong or overly simplistic.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    The research that @ColonelSun has done on this topic, and how he then wove it into a series, really gave me pause.

    After the extent in which he's gone to provide answers to himself, he's uncovered a lot of detailed accounts that make the hairs on the back of my neck stand to attention,

    (And then on top of that, Colonel has always been one of my favourite scriptwriters, so he's thus far created an incredibly errie tale, but so much comes from his research....)
  • Posts: 1,859
    Having been in hypnosis sessions with abductees............pray it never happens to you. The deeper you delve into the research the creepier it gets.
  • Posts: 1,490
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Yes to both.

    I believe that the likelihood that aliens exist is infinitely high, but the likelihood they’d ever encounter us is infinitely low. I think the idea they could find us, even if they’re far advanced, and even if they’re “close”, is to misunderstand the size of the universe.
    I believe in UFOs to the extent that it means unidentified flying objects.

    I think the answer to the spirit of the question is no to both.

    The James Webb Space Telescope is already identifying eco-plantets that have the possible chemistry, atmospheres and water signatures to potentially support life. We're only 70 plus years into space exploration, so, if ETs are thousand, even hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than us, then, of course they would have identified and found there worlds, like Earth, that support life.

    Like-Earth, maybe, but I still think you’re underestimating the sheer size of a practically infinitely large universe. The sheer odds of one of these thousands of years more advanced ETs being even remotely in the vicinity of the vicinity of us are so staggeringly low that even if they do exist, which I grant maybe they do, even with time and space bending technology we can assume they have, it’s next to infinitely unlikely they’d point themselves in the right direction let alone reach us.

    Super open to being wrong of course but I think if you think logically rather than idealistically, advanced aliens from elsewhere in the universe simply have not flown over to us.

    I can tell you I am a science guy. For example, been reading New Scientist every week for over 30 years. I've read countless books on astronomy, physics, quantum physics, space travel etc.. As a screenwriter I've been very deeply researching UFOs for over 4 years now for a big TV project. I have direct contact to the likes of Nick Pope, once head of Mods investigation, still ongoing, into UFOs and I have interviewed over a hundred experts and witnesses, military, police offices, and ordinary people from all walks of life. The result shave been startling to say the least.

    Yes, you are correct, space is vast, perhaps beyond comprehension in size and scale, but our present science is based on our limited understanding of physics, quantum physics, and time and space and much more. There is something I was once told by a physicist which has stuck with me; all points in time and space are connected.

    We will soon, with the use of JWST and other advanced telescopes, be able to detect if exo-planets can support or actually have present life. Many scientists think this will happen within a decade. That means will will, across our vast galaxy, 100 thousand lights years across, with way over 200 billion suns and a potential trillion other planets, be able to pinpoint planets with life. And we'll only be 80 years into space exploration. Any far more advanced intelligent species will most definitely have pinpointed us - and if they have the technology to warp space-time or cross space-time through natural wormholes, they will have got here - and I believe, after all my research, they are indeed here right now and have been for a very long time.
  • Posts: 1,490
    peter wrote: »
    The research that @ColonelSun has done on this topic, and how he then wove it into a series, really gave me pause.

    After the extent in which he's gone to provide answers to himself, he's uncovered a lot of detailed accounts that make the hairs on the back of my neck stand to attention,

    (And then on top of that, Colonel has always been one of my favourite scriptwriters, so he's thus far created an incredibly errie tale, but so much comes from his research....)

    I appreciate your review, Peter. All I ask is that the sceptics actually do some real homework before they throw mud at people who have actually done that research.

    Our (sad) human history overflows with people who are too scared to face any possibility that our concept of reality comes from our limited senses. Human beings, like any physical creature, are locked within a very narrow band with limited survival senses. We see and smell and taste what we need to sense within this narrow band of, to us, is a very narrow band of what is actually going on.

    Some of the vocal sceptics, who seem to think what they see and hear and smell and taste is the absolute truth, have never seriously researched anything at all. And yet they think, without any research at all, that they can shut down other people who have had the guts to do this deeper research.

    And it's scary. It takes guts to dive into places other people are too frightened to even explore or even consider.

    Shame on these people.

    Gutless.

    Wake up.

    What is wrong with you?

    Over 30 years ago, I told a close friend about climate change - and he, and many others. laughed at me. BRILLIANT. He was so right, wasn't he?

    Learn something.

    History shows us, people are often scared and they just want to live in a fake reality and, as such, it makes them feel safe.

    How mad are you?

    Human history proves, we never wake up in time.

    Wake up!!!!
  • Posts: 1,490
    I know some people on this site will try to trash what I am saying.

    These people might try to mock everything, but, I suspect, they are only trying to cling on to a perceived reality, which they sincerely believe is the only truth. But, if they have any guts at all, perhaps they can question it, or just think about what might be more real. Just think harder. Think.
  • Posts: 1,859
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I know some people on this site will try to trash what I am saying.

    These people might try to mock everything, but, I suspect, they are only trying to cling on to a perceived reality, which they sincerely believe is the only truth. But, if they have any guts at all, perhaps they can question it, or just think about what might be more real. Just think harder. Think.

    True. All it takes is having an open mind to doing the research.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    It's certainly true that a lot of people don't want to even consider, let alone hear, the truth if it'll undermine the worldview they've constructed to get through the day.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2023 Posts: 24,179
    No need to be so sharp, gents. From what I've read, many if not most of us are convinced that "they" are "out there". Many if not most of us are also more than open to the suggestion that "they" may have visited us already. And, as I have said before, @ColonelSun makes a more than compelling case for at least considering what people have told him with, or so I understand, an undeniably powerful emotional vigor that is hard to merely fake. I don't believe that too much hostility was shown here toward the idea that advanced alien civilizations may have come to our planet. As unlikely as it is, I doubt many of us are willing to just dismiss the notion as ridiculous simply because
    Venutius wrote: »
    it'll undermine the worldview they've constructed to get through the day.

    However, the
    Venutius wrote: »
    truth

    requires evidence that, if we're being fair, was not yet supplied, apart from what people have said, no matter how convincing their words are. We cannot be blamed for pursuing something more tangible before we call a claim "the truth". It's such a big claim after all, and the statistics are not in its favor. So, being open to the suggestion that something may have happened (which we are) also means being open to the suggestion that it hasn't (which we hope others can be as well) as long as the only thing we can work with is, again, what people have said.

    Now, I understand from what @ColonelSun has said in the past that these people have risked everything--their jobs, their reputation--talking about their experiences, and I must admit that such courage begs at least a fair consideration from us that they aren't lying.

    So I honestly hope that we can meet each other in the middle, agreeing that the matter is far from settled, and respecting each other's views (conviction versus skepticism) while looking forward together to what else is discovered in the future. I really want to create a positive atmosphere here and I'll be the first to admit that I was too quick to call certain claims ridiculous in the past. But I remain unconvinced for the time being, though not inconvincible...
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Yeah, I didn't mean it specifically in relation to this one subject. I was at Orgreave and saw what was basically a police riot, with coppers punching, kicking and truncheoning anyone they could get their hands on, including one bloke who was laying on a stretcher being treated by ambulancemen. But because the carefully cultivated idea that 'British police don't behave like that' was so deeply embedded, I had people flatly deny that it happened even though they weren't there and I'd seen it with my own eyes. One person literally laughed, said 'it didn't' and walked off. My experience so undermined the way they thought, that they wouldn't even engage with it as an idea and just swatted it aside in denial. That's where the similarity comes in and reminds me of the blanket scepticism, dismissal and ridicule around other subjects, such as this one or ghosts, etc, when it's an issue that contradicts the worldview that someone's built up for themselves.
  • Posts: 1,490
    delfloria wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I know some people on this site will try to trash what I am saying.

    These people might try to mock everything, but, I suspect, they are only trying to cling on to a perceived reality, which they sincerely believe is the only truth. But, if they have any guts at all, perhaps they can question it, or just think about what might be more real. Just think harder. Think.

    True. All it takes is having an open mind to doing the research.

    Thx. And doing the research, or at least some research, is also essential.

    I suggest those who talk (from our limited perspective as human beings) about physical distances as if that proves other intelligences cannot have found us, look up "entanglement". This is real and established science. Scientifically observed and deeply analysed at Cern and other particle accelerators around the world by the top physicists on our planet, super smart and educated experts, who dedicate their careers to trying to understand quantum physics and our universe. Look it up - ENTANGLEMENT. And then tell me other intelligences can't have found us or cannot already be here. Every point in time and space is connected.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I know some people on this site will try to trash what I am saying.

    These people might try to mock everything, but, I suspect, they are only trying to cling on to a perceived reality, which they sincerely believe is the only truth. But, if they have any guts at all, perhaps they can question it, or just think about what might be more real. Just think harder. Think.

    True. All it takes is having an open mind to doing the research.

    Thx. And doing the research, or at least some research, is also essential.

    I suggest those who talk (from our limited perspective as human beings) about physical distances as if that proves other intelligences cannot have found us, look up "entanglement". This is real and established science. Scientifically observed and deeply analysed at Cern and other particle accelerators around the world by the top physicists on our planet, super smart and educated experts, who dedicate their careers to trying to understand quantum physics and our universe. Look it up - ENTANGLEMENT. And then tell me other intelligences can't have found us or cannot already be here. Every point in time and space is connected.

    Yes, I know what entanglement -- excuse me, ENTANGLEMENT -- means. ;-) It's a fascinating concept. It makes 'beaming up' and 'beaming down' in Star Trek a possible future reality for us. I merely wish I could make use of it now: rush hour traffic is painful.
  • Posts: 1,490
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    No need to be so sharp, gents. From what I've read, many if not most of us are convinced that "they" are "out there". Many if not most of us are also more than open to the suggestion that "they" may have visited us already. And, as I have said before, @ColonelSun makes a more than compelling case for at least considering what people have told him with, or so I understand, an undeniably powerful emotional vigor that is hard to merely fake. I don't believe that too much hostility was shown here toward the idea that advanced alien civilizations may have come to our planet. As unlikely as it is, I doubt many of us are willing to just dismiss the notion as ridiculous simply because
    Venutius wrote: »
    it'll undermine the worldview they've constructed to get through the day.

    However, the
    Venutius wrote: »
    truth

    requires evidence that, if we're being fair, was not yet supplied, apart from what people have said, no matter how convincing their words are. We cannot be blamed for pursuing something more tangible before we call a claim "the truth". It's such a big claim after all, and the statistics are not in its favor. So, being open to the suggestion that something may have happened (which we are) also means being open to the suggestion that it hasn't (which we hope others can be as well) as long as the only thing we can work with is, again, what people have said.

    Now, I understand from what @ColonelSun has said in the past that these people have risked everything--their jobs, their reputation--talking about their experiences, and I must admit that such courage begs at least a fair consideration from us that they aren't lying.

    So I honestly hope that we can meet each other in the middle, agreeing that the matter is far from settled, and respecting each other's views (conviction versus skepticism) while looking forward together to what else is discovered in the future. I really want to create a positive atmosphere here and I'll be the first to admit that I was too quick to call certain claims ridiculous in the past. But I remain unconvinced for the time being, though not inconvincible...

    It is not unlikely. What makes you say this? It is actually very likely. Just look at the Drake equation. I assume you know about that? Do the maths and then some basic research before dismissing something as unlikely based on -- what? What? An uneducated opinion? The possibility we are not alone and they might already be here might unsettle your idea of reality, and I get that, but seriously..... Mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial - even when its right in front of us.
  • Posts: 1,490
    They use electro-magnetic forces, in sync with element 115 (revealed by rocket scientist, Bob Lazar in the 1980s, and later discovered to be a real element in the mid-2000's), to warp space/time around their crafts and, in doing so, create antigravity bubbles which allows their crafts to manoeuvre and travel at insane speeds without any G-forces. They travel at 50 miles per second, often far more - per second - in our atmosphere. If an aircraft carrier was traveling at that speed, our human eyes and senses, evolved for our earth bound environment, would fail or struggle to see or hear the craft, however big is was or is - and some are way over a mile in diameter. We only glimpse these crafts - eye witnesses, pilots, plane officers, radar, when the crafts are (for whatever reason) moving slower - just like the 1997 Phoenix sightings seen by thousands of local people and filmed on video. I have been told this information by very, very serious experts (people I have mentioned in previous posts,) who are real, genuine, and know of what they speak.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2023 Posts: 24,179
    @ColonelSun
    I am familiar with the Drake equation. Just so we're clear: its validity has never been experimentally verified. The equation itself is largely based on presumptions, not on empirical data. So 'doing the math' is certainly amusing and could result in interesting discussions, but it is not at all an equation of proven validity such as, say, the Schrödinger equation or Maxwell's equations. That said, I have always had a fondness for the Drake equation. I'm not here to ridicule it, only to warn people not to lend the same credence to it as we do to, say, equations in an engineering textbook that we use to build bridges and buildings.

    Also, the Drake equation predicts the number of alien civilizations out there that are sufficiently advanced to be able to communicate with us. It does not, however, imply that there's a big chance one of them has already found or visited us; that's an entirely different matter. The Drake equation doesn't put the probability of us having been visited by aliens in numbers.

    I regret that you want to call my position in this discussion 'based on an uneducated opinion.' I think I have shown more than enough willingness to have this discussion in an open-minded fashion. So for the last time: I am not denying or dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that as long as the only thing we have to work with is what alleged witnesses can tell us, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. When you submit that "mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial, even when it's right in front of us," I'm saying that the problem is exactly that: it isn't right in front of us yet, it's so far locked in anecdotal recounts. And I want more before I completely jump on the wagon.

    I simply can't see why this is so troubling. I have admitted to being a bit harsh in the past, and also to being much more open-minded thanks to this thread, mostly thanks to your passionate advocating, @ColonelSun. I also continue to point out that I don't want to dismiss anything in this debate as silly. But I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that I'll reserve my conclusions until I have seen more proof.
  • Posts: 1,490
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @ColonelSun
    I am familiar with the Drake equation. Just so we're clear: its validity has never been experimentally verified. The equation itself is largely based on presumptions, not on empirical data. So 'doing the math' is certainly amusing and could result in interesting discussions, but it is not at all an equation of proven validity such as, say, the Schrödinger equation or Maxwell's equations. That said, I have always had a fondness for the Drake equation. I'm not here to ridicule it, only to warn people not to lend the same credence to it as we do to, say, equations in an engineering textbook that we use to build bridges and buildings.

    Also, the Drake equation predicts the number of alien civilizations out there that are sufficiently advanced to be able to communicate with us. It does not, however, imply that there's a big chance one of them has already found or visited us; that's an entirely different matter. The Drake equation doesn't put the probability of us having been visited by aliens in numbers.

    I regret that you want to call my position in this discussion 'based on an uneducated opinion.' I think I have shown more than enough willingness to have this discussion in an open-minded fashion. So for the last time: I am not denying or dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that as long as the only thing we have to work with is what alleged witnesses can tell us, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. When you submit that "mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial, even when it's right in front of us," I'm saying that the problem is exactly that: it isn't right in front of us yet, it's so far locked in anecdotal recounts. And I want more before I completely jump on the wagon.

    I simply can't see why this is so troubling. I have admitted to being a bit harsh in the past, and also to being much more open-minded thanks to this thread, mostly thanks to your passionate advocating, @ColonelSun. I also continue to point out that I don't want to dismiss anything in this debate as silly. But I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that I'll reserve my conclusions until I have seen more proof.

    I respect that. I think you have, as you say, been open. The reason this is so important to me is because, after all I've researched and been told by experts and witnesses, it really is very important. You have not experienced that as far as I know. Your opinion is, therefore, just an opinion without first hand research or experience.

    US Congress are finally admitting UAPs are real, but holding back on saying what they think they are - although, from my sources, they do know what they are. All I can say to you is that human beings, as history shows us over an dover again, often fail to see what is right in front of their eyes because it can or might upset their understanding of a safer reality. I think we know that is true.

  • Posts: 1,490
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @ColonelSun
    I am familiar with the Drake equation. Just so we're clear: its validity has never been experimentally verified. The equation itself is largely based on presumptions, not on empirical data. So 'doing the math' is certainly amusing and could result in interesting discussions, but it is not at all an equation of proven validity such as, say, the Schrödinger equation or Maxwell's equations. That said, I have always had a fondness for the Drake equation. I'm not here to ridicule it, only to warn people not to lend the same credence to it as we do to, say, equations in an engineering textbook that we use to build bridges and buildings.

    Also, the Drake equation predicts the number of alien civilizations out there that are sufficiently advanced to be able to communicate with us. It does not, however, imply that there's a big chance one of them has already found or visited us; that's an entirely different matter. The Drake equation doesn't put the probability of us having been visited by aliens in numbers.

    I regret that you want to call my position in this discussion 'based on an uneducated opinion.' I think I have shown more than enough willingness to have this discussion in an open-minded fashion. So for the last time: I am not denying or dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that as long as the only thing we have to work with is what alleged witnesses can tell us, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. When you submit that "mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial, even when it's right in front of us," I'm saying that the problem is exactly that: it isn't right in front of us yet, it's so far locked in anecdotal recounts. And I want more before I completely jump on the wagon.

    I simply can't see why this is so troubling. I have admitted to being a bit harsh in the past, and also to being much more open-minded thanks to this thread, mostly thanks to your passionate advocating, @ColonelSun. I also continue to point out that I don't want to dismiss anything in this debate as silly. But I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that I'll reserve my conclusions until I have seen more proof.

    Btw, the Drake equation is a far more detailed and relevant than you say.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2023 Posts: 24,179
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @ColonelSun
    I am familiar with the Drake equation. Just so we're clear: its validity has never been experimentally verified. The equation itself is largely based on presumptions, not on empirical data. So 'doing the math' is certainly amusing and could result in interesting discussions, but it is not at all an equation of proven validity such as, say, the Schrödinger equation or Maxwell's equations. That said, I have always had a fondness for the Drake equation. I'm not here to ridicule it, only to warn people not to lend the same credence to it as we do to, say, equations in an engineering textbook that we use to build bridges and buildings.

    Also, the Drake equation predicts the number of alien civilizations out there that are sufficiently advanced to be able to communicate with us. It does not, however, imply that there's a big chance one of them has already found or visited us; that's an entirely different matter. The Drake equation doesn't put the probability of us having been visited by aliens in numbers.

    I regret that you want to call my position in this discussion 'based on an uneducated opinion.' I think I have shown more than enough willingness to have this discussion in an open-minded fashion. So for the last time: I am not denying or dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that as long as the only thing we have to work with is what alleged witnesses can tell us, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. When you submit that "mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial, even when it's right in front of us," I'm saying that the problem is exactly that: it isn't right in front of us yet, it's so far locked in anecdotal recounts. And I want more before I completely jump on the wagon.

    I simply can't see why this is so troubling. I have admitted to being a bit harsh in the past, and also to being much more open-minded thanks to this thread, mostly thanks to your passionate advocating, @ColonelSun. I also continue to point out that I don't want to dismiss anything in this debate as silly. But I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that I'll reserve my conclusions until I have seen more proof.

    I respect that. I think you have, as you say, been open. The reason this is so important to me is because, after all I've researched and been told by experts and witnesses, it really is very important. You have not experienced that as far as I know. Your opinion is, therefore, just an opinion without first hand research or experience.

    US Congress are finally admitting UAPs are real, but holding back on saying what they think they are - although, from my sources, they do know what they are. All I can say to you is that human beings, as history shows us over an dover again, often fail to see what is right in front of their eyes because it can or might upset their understanding of a safer reality. I think we know that is true.

    Thank you, @ColonelSun. And yes, you are right, I have never conversed with anyone claiming any experience in the matter. That's why I have built a genuine interest in reading/seeing what you are willing to share with me.

    And yes, I agree that people are quick to dismiss something that defies their everyday experiences. As a teacher, I have to fight that uphill battle every year. Some students, no matter how I approach the subject, mock quantum physics because it messes with how they see the physical world. So I certainly understand that convincing the "masses" of something other than what ends up on their grocery lists or in their wallets can be challenging. And I'm not trying to be a hypocrite; I know that I'm one of the not-so-easily-swayed folks in this discussion myself.

    For the record: my son is about to turn 1. One day, when he's a little bit older, I want to gaze at the stars at night with him and tell him about all the possibilities such an incredibly large universe has to offer. I want to take him to an observatory too--we have one not too far from where we live--and show him, not just the beauty of what we can (already) see, but also challenge him to keep an open mind about what we cannot (yet) see. Aliens with be a part of those conversations. Most of all, and I hope you are cool with that, I want to teach him that our knowledge about the universe is still only in its infancy, and that there's so much going on out there that we haven't even begun to contemplate, but that the scientific approach is still, while not without its flaws, the best tool we have to dig ever deeper in those hidden realities. I'm really looking forward to those moments with my boy, and I truly hope, from the bottom of my heart, that he'll be as excited about these things as I am. ;-)
  • Posts: 1,490
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @ColonelSun
    I am familiar with the Drake equation. Just so we're clear: its validity has never been experimentally verified. The equation itself is largely based on presumptions, not on empirical data. So 'doing the math' is certainly amusing and could result in interesting discussions, but it is not at all an equation of proven validity such as, say, the Schrödinger equation or Maxwell's equations. That said, I have always had a fondness for the Drake equation. I'm not here to ridicule it, only to warn people not to lend the same credence to it as we do to, say, equations in an engineering textbook that we use to build bridges and buildings.

    Also, the Drake equation predicts the number of alien civilizations out there that are sufficiently advanced to be able to communicate with us. It does not, however, imply that there's a big chance one of them has already found or visited us; that's an entirely different matter. The Drake equation doesn't put the probability of us having been visited by aliens in numbers.

    I regret that you want to call my position in this discussion 'based on an uneducated opinion.' I think I have shown more than enough willingness to have this discussion in an open-minded fashion. So for the last time: I am not denying or dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that as long as the only thing we have to work with is what alleged witnesses can tell us, I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. When you submit that "mankind's greatest failure is our continuous denial, even when it's right in front of us," I'm saying that the problem is exactly that: it isn't right in front of us yet, it's so far locked in anecdotal recounts. And I want more before I completely jump on the wagon.

    I simply can't see why this is so troubling. I have admitted to being a bit harsh in the past, and also to being much more open-minded thanks to this thread, mostly thanks to your passionate advocating, @ColonelSun. I also continue to point out that I don't want to dismiss anything in this debate as silly. But I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that I'll reserve my conclusions until I have seen more proof.

    Btw, the Drake equation is a far more detailed and relevant than you say.

    And, if you did a little bit of actual research, you might discover how much information is really out there. All I'm saying is, this is very important - we are talking about our place in the universe. What can be more important? Quote from you; I simply can't see why this is so troubling - What? Sorry, but are you serious? Do a little research, otherwise, what you are saying remains a non-researched opinion.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I wouldn’t say I was a non believer…. I always thought there must be other life forms out there, but after reading @ColonelSun ’s research and then the series he’s developing, I was moved to believe this is a topic of such large scope, with more reports and government admissions, that I’m more convinced than ever that these pilots (whether commercial or military), can’t all be hallucinating or worse, lying.

    The fact that those giving their accounts have been ridiculed or under threat of losing their livelihood also gives me pause; what’s the benefit of telling these stories if they’re not true? It’s not as if all these men are getting book and tv deals… The risk is seemingly more than any reward.

    Interesting discussion above, gentlemen. And far above my pay grade (you’re both quite smart, AINT ya? 😉)
Sign In or Register to comment.