SETI and aliens

[Nick]

Because something doesn't operate like your logic says, it is false? I'm sorry but not everything in this world can be explained using Logic, not everything is logical.

No. If a theory is not self-consistent, it is false. If there is one theory which is consistent with everything else we know about the world, and another theory which requires some tremendous leaps of faith, then the first theory is to be preferred (unless, of course, you are already a true believer). As for your statement about not everything being logical - d'uh. But sensible people recognise that such things are, almost by definition, personal, simply because they are not grounded in rationality. When you are trying to convince someone else that you are right and they are wrong, then you better have some damn good logical arguments to back up your position - because their subjective experience is just as valid as yours.

Anyways there are pictures of such tubes, and why should I know the reasons for Nasa covering it up?

What pictures? What do they show? Where did you get them? What are the other explanations for the contents of the pictures?
As for your knowing why NASA would cover them up, that is not the question I asked. For your theory to be plausible, you must be able to provide plausible reasons for NASA's cover-up. It is not necessary that these reasons be the actual reasons for the cover-up - it is only necessary that they be plausible.

there are suggestive ones, like Nasa is afraid to tell the public since they don't know the full implication of these discoveries.It'd also change science and perspectives, change is not very liked by Nasa for some reason.

You don't read any scientific journals, do you? They're always full of statements like "We aren't completely sure of the possible ramifications, but believe this will be an interesting area for further investigation". All you are revealing here is your ignorance of the proper practice of science (again).

But there are orginizations who are fighting for the truth, one of the reasons I know of these things.

No, there are organisations fighting to make a quick buck. And people like you, my friend, are their bread and butter.

An obvious anomolie found on mars is the face, which is clearly artificial, but again this is all one one website.Probably will never reveal the site, though I'm going to provide a link to a site with the nasa footage I spoke of earlier.Maybe tommorow.

You do that.
On the issue of the Martian face. . .

Some pretty pictures and a little pre-Mars Global Surveyor discussion:
http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/ ... ssion.html
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/ext ... 2001/face/

And a really good explanation for why people who believe in the Face on Mars are dumbasses:
http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/op ... 00613.html

All links found on the first page of a Google search for "mars face". Nice to see the impressive extent of your investigative research extends that far, Priesto. . .

[Nick]

Cutting edge? is that so? why haven't they been to the moon in like 15 years? there's a reason, of course you'd say cause the moon is a rock with nothing more than a triclke of water and a bunch of craters.

There's water on the moon? Good God, why didn't anyone tell me?!

So, is your reason because they never went to the moon in the first place, or because the aliens have a base there, or because they have been back and just didn't tell anyone?

After all, all three of those are much more plausible than the Moon being a really boring chunk of lifeless rock.

[oberon]

It's also expensive to go to the moon. We did it to show our dick size--the whole thing is really about ICBMs when it comes down to it, and we kinda had to hurry after Sputnik--and we planted some markers and took some samples for research, and maybe we found everything we need or want to know about the moon. Maybe once we got our ICBMs up to speed, it just wasn't necessary to GO to the moon anymore, and maybe the money could have been used for something like, oh, I don't know, nuclear deterrents? What's better to have--a couple more redundant moonshots, or a missile defense for the Cold War? Perhaps, I mean, for fuck's sake, just maybe, it's not worth it to go 250,000 miles away, with enormous effort, cost and risk of life, when we can do more cost-effective research (on things that matter to us, more so than a hunk of rock in the sky) in orbit with *gasp* a reusable craft. Maybe we don't go to the moon because we're the only country on the world to have done it, we proved we could, and we don't need to. Why select an argument against our government for not wasting money to go back to the moon, when no-one else has even been there at all? We did it because we're a rich country, and we don't need to spend anymore dough on it. Or maybe it's just because there's an alien air force base on the moon keeping us away! Jesus Christ, thicko.

[Priesto]

Priesto, you are clearly not the religious nut people think you are. Life on other planets defies God, and our place in the universe, and is not in scripture.

Religion? I'm a christian but don't bring that word up.Man made religion, I'm a follower of christ.Scripture doesn't speak of life on other planets, for it is not necessery for our soul salvation or for witnessing.Many leaders are iffy on the subject simply cause it raises too many questions.Such as, Do the aliens have souls?did Jesus die for them? Well the Bible says that Jesus was God's only begotten son.Also alien being would not have the technology they do, they'd been destroyed like us humans were almost destroyed.Only thing is Noah was worthy to be saved.So we are very unique and a strange people.We'd be far more advanced than we are today, if we had not of fallen.Modern civilization extends farther back than what science books state.Man is one of God's many creations, common sense would say that in space where there are mre stars than grains of sand, there has to be life.Wishful thinking? I think not, it is obvious when something is wishful thinking.

[Priesto]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicvideos.html


Scroll to the bottom, you will find your lost ship.

[omegaLancer]

Funny, but recentily the head of seti admitted that they maybe sign in our own solar systems that ET may be active or have been active in our solar system..

And then there is the Von Braum statement on his death bed that there Nasa had proof that aliens were in our solar system ( not is contact with our goverment, just going about their own business)

And the varies statement by Astronauts over the years...

Problem is are they here cause life is so rare and they find us interesting ( as we find a colony of ants interesting) or for some other not so nice reason...

[Priesto]

Funny, but recentily the head of seti admitted that they maybe sign in our own solar systems that ET may be active or have been active in our solar system..

And then there is the Von Braum statement on his death bed that there Nasa had proof that aliens were in our solar system ( not is contact with our goverment, just going about their own business)

And the varies statement by Astronauts over the years...

Problem is are they here cause life is so rare and they find us interesting ( as we find a colony of ants interesting) or for some other not so nice reason...

We are very interesting and rightly so.Though life isn't rare, I'm confident most of the planets in our solar system has life.

[Nick]

Funny, but recentily the head of seti admitted that they maybe sign in our own solar systems that ET may be active or have been active in our solar system..

Is that so? Quote? Context? Identity of speaker? Anything to allow is to verify this comment?

And then there is the Von Braum statement on his death bed that there Nasa had proof that aliens were in our solar system ( not is contact with our goverment, just going about their own business)

Which death bed statement? C'mon, enough with this vague attribution bullshit. If you can't give us real quotes that can be checked for authenticity and reliability, what's the point?

And the varies statement by Astronauts over the years...

See above. Besides, astronauts aren't any more averse to making a quick buck out of gullible people than any other sector of the population.

Problem is are they here cause life is so rare and they find us interesting ( as we find a colony of ants interesting) or for some other not so nice reason...

No, the problem here is the propensity of gullible people to believe in bogeymen.

[Nick]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicvideos.html


Scroll to the bottom, you will find your lost ship.

Who lost a ship? So, are we talking about the anonymous Mexico City footage, the 'moon anomalies' or what? Which one of those films do you consider your "strongest evidence"?

(I figure just discussing whichever one you consider strongest will save us a lot of time - I have no intention of debunking each and every one for you simply because someone switched your brain to neutral at birth).

[oberon]

Jeeze, way to miss the point, which was that the existence of life other than ours goes against the bible. If God created life on other planets, doesn't that strike you as noteworthy? It would be pretty important, yet the Bible doesn't say anything about it, and if there were then we would not be the only ones with whom God wishes to consort. God didn't create us for servitude, he created us for companionship. He has the angels for service. Perhaps you'd like to argue that the angels are the aliens?


I am not discounting the possibility of life on other planets, and I am not a pastor. I am merely pointing out that you completely missed the point and seem unable to make up your mind about something of which you profess to be knowledgeable. Why, and how, would you say that you're pretty sure there are lifeforms on planets you've never seen, that may or may not be in a suitable temperature range, and may or may not have a suitable atmosphere to sustain life? I've never been to space and I forgot to bring my microscope, but what on Earth makes you think you know more than the people who have been to space, and who didn't forget their microscopes? Perhaps it goes like this: every astronaut is a replicant bred by the CIA to keep silent about their discoveries. Nevermind the specific diction (replicant, breedinjg) and focusing on the fact that you think there's some kind of coverup, then if that were true, then science as it stands would break down. If open inquiry were abandoned, then they wouldn't be scientists, yet for some reason, astronauts are required to conduct experiments, collect data, and publish scientific articles. If NASA found other lifeforms, we'd be the first to know because it means more funding and exploration. Publicity! If they covered everything up, then they could not function as a scientific organization. If what you say had any grain of truth in it, they would not be hiring PhD's for astronauts, they'd be hiring Olympic runners.

Quit pretending to be rational.

[omegaLancer]

The director was Dr Jill Tarter while she said that that Attempts have be made to find proof of long term station in our solar system, that there was a good chance that "they may be here" but doubted that they would kidnapping aunt sally...as told during a interview by Space.com on nov 12 1999.

The Astronauts who claim to have seen ufo's:

Major Gordon Cooper
John glenn ( picture taken during Mercury 1 mission)
Ed White
Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin
Donald Slayton
Robert white
Eugene Cernan
Pere Conrad
Richard Gordon

And then there was former president carter (yes what a poor source)

I will try to trace the Von Braun Quote, the only statement i got is a second hand qote from Clarke McClelland, who said that Von Braum told him this. but it not a good source since he no longer with Nasa and is writing UFO books....

[Gil Hamilton]

We are very interesting and rightly so.Though life isn't rare, I'm confident most of the planets in our solar system has life.

Care to back that up with evidence?
4 out of 9 planets in this solar system don't even have clearly defined surfaces let alone conditions hospitable to life, Mercury and Pluto don't have any substanial atmospheres (in fact, Plutos "atmosphere" is alternates from being frozen and unfrozen due to it's extreme ellipical orbit). We've put enough probes and sent enough landers to mars to notice if an ecosystem was at work. That leaves Venus, which is a hundred thousand times more hostile to life than Mars is.

[oberon]

"astronauts who've seen UFOs"

Let's not forget kids, "UFO" simply stands for "unidentified flying object". Not "unidentified flying object with aliens on board." I bet you would be challenged to identify every little thing you saw too...

[Nick]

See Priesto - *this* is what you do when people ask you for more information. . .

OmegaLancer - thanks for satisfying my curiosity. Now on to why using these as arguments in favour of Priesto-style nutjob conspiracy theories is idiocy. . .

The director was Dr Jill Tarter while she said that that Attempts have be made to find proof of long term station in our solar system, that there was a good chance that "they may be here" but doubted that they would kidnapping aunt sally...as told during a interview by Space.com on nov 12 1999.

A good chance they may be here. . . hardly ringing endorsement for any 'aliens in our system' theorists. If that's what she said, then she was probably still overstating the case - but in a fairly harmless way.

The Astronauts who claim to have seen ufo's
::snip list of 9 astronauts::

9 out of how many? And, as oberon pointed out, 'ufo' is a rather broad term. . .

And then there was former president carter (yes what a poor source)

On the subject of UFO's? No more qualified on the topic than my dear old grandmother (and she died before I was born. . .)

I will try to trace the Von Braun Quote, the only statement i got is a second hand qote from Clarke McClelland, who said that Von Braum told him this. but it not a good source since he no longer with Nasa and is writing UFO books....

The problem with playing the quote game is that, for every astronaut or so-called scientist that claims to believe in UFO's, it is possible to find dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, who will point out the irrationality and stupidity of believing same.

It's a classic case of the UFO book writers exploiting Wizard's First Rule: people will believe anything, either because they want it to be true, or they're afraid it might be.

(Oh - the book is now open on how long it takes Priesto to claim victory if no-one gets around to digging up the evidence for and against his cinematic masterpiece. I'd say the conclusion that it's a fake concocted by a couple of bored people is rather more plausible than that a UFO came down, hung around above Mexico City long enough to be photographed - just this one tape mind you, no others - and then buggered off again. But wait, I can hear the cries of 'you didn't even watch it' already ringing out. . .)

[omegaLancer]

Actually popular science did an article called the 10 best cases for proof of UFO's and the number one, undeniable photo and witnesses was a 1962 expedition by the Argentia Navy ( no jokes).

A group of scientist and miltary personnel was surveying a group of islands near chile, when a UFO flew over the ship.. A series of clear photos where taken and a all the witness were questioned and Agree that about the Disc shaped object that was photograph... It Stand today as the single unquestionable UFO encounter, and has yet to disproven...

[Wicked Pilot]

A group of scientist and miltary personnel was surveying a group of islands near chile, when a UFO flew over the ship.. A series of clear photos where taken and a all the witness were questioned and Agree that about the Disc shaped object that was photograph... It Stand today as the single unquestionable UFO encounter, and has yet to disproven...

I am hereby calling you out. Show us this super undeniable UFO photo! Show it to us in all it's glory.

[Lord of the Farce]

Well personally, I find it funny how the number of home video cameras seems to have a negative correlation with UFO sightings

[oberon]

I'm going to Singer's website now, to look up what that funky sewing machine is called, that has the 2 tall spools threaded to it in the back.

[omegaLancer]

You called me out, I donot have the photso but here is the Popular mechanics ( my mistake it PM not PS that had the article and it was brazil.. My memory is going with old age)

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci ... M.html#UFO

The Trindade Brazil case was report by the Brazilian navy and is the most solid case i ever read about.... The pictures are okay for the time[/img]

[Priesto]

Sorry I've been gone soo long. I wasn't clear about the link I provided, it is near the bottom and says "the smoking gun" I think.Analyze it and tell me your thoughts.

[omegaLancer]

Funny about video camera and the negate results.. There are lot of video camera footages ( some damn good one) problem is that some have been proven to be hoaxes, and the rest are just consider not be hoaxes but still not to be good enought to be proof.. Meaning no one can prove they are not hoaxes, but still not considered to be proof of ufo being space craft..

The problem is that just snapping a photo, having witnesses ( ex presidents, miltary pilots, astronaut,several scientist, the bralizian Navy, etc) and having a video tape is not good enought ( hell if it was a court case, it would be enought to determine a burden of proof).. We want to have solid evident ( aliens landing on the white house lawn and saying here we are,) a piece of the saucer ( Hard considering beings that can cross the star, would not have ships that shed parts) or the bodies of the same said aliens...

If we considers a lesser
standard of proof for main steam items, like blackholes ( radio telescope and xray photos are proof), yet this is not good enought for ufo..

I know a few scientist that would kill for video tape of a blackhole, or to be within eyeshot or talk to poeple that were close enought to see one.. So why do we belittle or question the truefulness of those that come forward with accounts of encounter with ufo's. True some are hoaxes ( like main steam science doesnot contain such hoaxes ( cold fusion, the recent scandal at Bell labs, etc)) but that does excuse that science should study this evidents on a fair basis..

Hell Einstein theories of relatitivity was challenged cause it didnot fit our neat picture of the universe, and there still a handful of scientist that question it ( Hell it was illegial for in Nazi germany and USSR for several decades to even teach it )..

[Nick]

If we considers a lesser
standard of proof for main steam items, like blackholes ( radio telescope and xray photos are proof), yet this is not good enought for ufo..

You think the standards of proof for scientific theories are lower than the standards for UFO's? *bwahahahahaha*

You know the interesting thing about blackhole theory? IT MAKES PREDICTIONS. It says "if we point this telescope, at this piece of sky, we should see such-and-such" And so far, the predictions have been pretty good. When they aren't right - they improve the theory. When they can't figure out how to test a piece of the theory, they treat is as somewhat tentative - but if it doesn't contradict anything they _can_ test, then that's good enough.

The problem with the UFO enthusiasts is that, just because they like the UFO explanations, they think those explanation should be accepted by others. The fact that the claims of the enthusiasts often fail to fit the facts seems moot. Face it - their credibility has been shot to pieces. They've been wrong SO many times, distorting the facts to fit into their wishful thinking, that no-one in their right mind is going to take their word for anything.

Let's take Priesto's "smoking gun" as an example:

We have wonderful moving discs zooming around the satellite tether 'just after the tether is released'.

Unfortunately, this UFO enthusiast utopia collapses on two major grounds. Firstly, the images that are seen can be perfectly adequately explained by the somewhat prosaic features of the camera used to take the shots. Secondly, if these objects were what UFO enthusiasts claim, they would have been visible from Earth. Not just to hobbyists with telescopes pointing at the tether - to all of the people who were looking at the tether with the naked eye. Oh, I almost forgot to mention - the shots are actually from some time after the tether was released, despite claims to the contrary.

Too bad, so sad, you lose.

And once again, Google has served as the tool of rationality. A search for the term 'STS-75' turned up the following on the first page of links:
http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

[Nick]

If we considers a lesser
standard of proof for main steam items, like blackholes ( radio telescope and xray photos are proof), yet this is not good enought for ufo..

You think the standards of proof for scientific theories are lower than the standards for UFO's? *bwahahahahaha*

You know the interesting thing about blackhole theory? IT MAKES PREDICTIONS. It says "if we point this telescope, at this piece of sky, we should see such-and-such" And so far, the predictions have been pretty good. When they aren't right - they improve the theory. When they can't figure out how to test a piece of the theory, they treat is as somewhat tentative - but if it doesn't contradict anything they _can_ test, then that's good enough.

The problem with the UFO enthusiasts is that, just because they like the UFO explanations, they think those explanation should be accepted by others. The fact that the claims of the enthusiasts often fail to fit the facts seems moot. Face it - their credibility has been shot to pieces. They've been wrong SO many times, distorting the facts to fit into their wishful thinking, that no-one in their right mind is going to take their word for anything.

Let's take Priesto's "smoking gun" as an example:

We have wonderful moving discs zooming around the satellite tether 'just after the tether is released'.

Unfortunately, this UFO enthusiast utopia collapses on two major grounds. Firstly, the images that are seen can be perfectly adequately explained by the somewhat prosaic features of the camera used to take the shots. Secondly, if these objects were what UFO enthusiasts claim, they would have been visible from Earth. Not just to hobbyists with telescopes pointing at the tether - to all of the people who were looking at the tether with the naked eye. Oh, I almost forgot to mention - the shots are actually from some time after the tether was released, despite claims to the contrary - in other words, at the time the shots are taken, the astronauts have moved on to other things, and the tether is no longer of any great interest to them.

Too bad, so sad, you lose.

And once again, Google has served as the tool of rationality. A search for the term 'STS-75' turned up the following on the first page of links:
http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

[oberon]

*chuckles*
This stuff is precious, precious gold. Oh, my.

[Wicked Pilot]

The Popular Mechanic's article is of no worth. So I must ask againt to see this undenialable photo


Where's the Beef?