ufo and such

[Xcalibur]

I'm watching a program about u.f.o, about those strange circles (and no i won't talk about that crap full of bug movie with mel gibson)

When you think about our history, about the pyramids and the way the Egyptian pictured their "gods", about all those people that claimed to saw them, being kidnapped, about area 54? (memory?), about how the governements of any countries keep their informations, and worse use disinformations about them..

Can we say that IF some aliens are interested in us, they are friendly since they could attack us since aeons without any problems?

I for one think that we will live the first contact

[Caels]

Maybe we are the aliens?

[imported_Kranar]

I love UFO stories, not because I believe in them, but because they're just so damn interesting I can't resist them. For me they're like Urban Legends, you know they're not true, but you love to read about them anyways because of how intricate the story is.

There are some really good UFO pictures that always facinate me. Especially the really old ones from the early 1900s, when people just took pictures of things in the air and didn't know what they were. I can't explain those pictures, but it would be a fallacy to assume that because I have no explanation, that they must be UFOs.

The Roswell Incident is also a very good story that acted as the catalyst behind Area 51.

Apart from that, I don't think any alien would care to harm us. Why travel so far away for the sake of destruction?

Who knows...

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[Caels]

Maybe not destruction, but domination. You know that if it were us traveling to distant worlds we'd probably be trying to dominate other species.

Anyhow, I do not believe in UFO's and aliens being here already, but I think that there has to be life out there some where.

[Xcalibur]

we're the aliens? to them?
hehe, when we think about the greastest nations of Earth's history...
Egyptians, warlike nation, religious
Greek, warlike nation, religious and philosophic
Romans, warlike nation, became religious
Franks, warlike, etc etc.
Maybe yeah, they're just peaceful u.f.o fearing our military ambitions.
But why our damn governements, almost all alike, keep the informations for em. Why almost no information was spit out of the area 54?

Kranar, you think that all ufo stories are therefore false if you think they're like urban legends?

IF they discover real fossil on mars, will that definitivly prove that life could and s urely exists elsewhere?

[CrystalTears]

Aliens just want us for the plastic. :D

[imported_Kranar]

Xcalibur, if there's one thing I learned in history, it's that the human race is plagued with war. In any period, humans acheive an enlightenment, a grand achivement in knowledge/philosophy, and no sooner than this acheivement, someone comes along and starts a war.

[Caels]

Normally because some idiot wants that enlightment, or fears it, therefore they seek to obtain or destroy it.

And I meant what if we are aliens on our own planet. Maybe someone placed us here like animals in a zoo.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Kranar, you think that all ufo stories are therefore false if you think they're like urban legends? >>

Hmm... I'm leaning towards the false, yes.

<< IF they discover real fossil on mars, will that definitivly prove that life could and s urely exists elsewhere? >>

Yes.

[Xcalibur]

that's my point
we, human, are a war-addicted people.
In WWII, look at all those improvements we got, all that for the glory of our nations!

Caels, i fear that option, that we were placed here, and they look at us like if we were an experiment.
If you extrapolate that, maybe it's "God" that does so, and everywhere there's planted people, and it's a race!!!

that scares me, really, we are not alone, look at how huge the sky is!

[Caels]

LOL, I think life is an experiment. Even if we are not.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar


Apart from that, I don't think any alien would care to harm us. Why travel so far away for the sake of destruction?

Who knows...

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

Well our own history does not show a tremendous interest in preserving discovered cultures, but rather a disinterest in what befalls them as long as our own needs are served.

[Caels]

Yeah, but we're human... there's gotta be something better than us.

[Black Jesus]

The Roswell incident was neither a weather balloon nor a UFO. There are things called black projects that the military, primarily the Air Force have. These projects are classified on a strictly need to know basis. One of the black projects crashed in Roswell that day and that is why there was a cover up. It was not an alien spaceship.

The probability that life DOESN'T exist beyond Earth is inifinitesmial. Now the issue comes to be is there INTELLIGENT life out there? It's pretty safe to say there is no intelligent life in our solar system which is extraterrestrial. Assuming accepted physics hold true, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever see interstellar travelers. The lack of ability to communicate with a homebase is a pretty risky venture on such a long trip.

[Red Devil]

Area 51 !

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by Black Jesus
The Roswell incident was neither a weather balloon nor a UFO. There are things called black projects that the military, primarily the Air Force have. These projects are classified on a strictly need to know basis. One of the black projects crashed in Roswell that day and that is why there was a cover up. It was not an alien spaceship.

The probability that life DOESN'T exist beyond Earth is inifinitesmial. Now the issue comes to be is there INTELLIGENT life out there? It's pretty safe to say there is no intelligent life in our solar system which is extraterrestrial. Assuming accepted physics hold true, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever see interstellar travelers. The lack of ability to communicate with a homebase is a pretty risky venture on such a long trip.

Then whered the alien come from? you know the ALIEN AND THE TINFOIL

[Black Jesus]

god put him there

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Black Jesus
god put him there

Were you kidnapped by a bible salesman over the weekend or something?

[Warriorbird]

www.davidicke.com

and....I agree about the black ops/Area 51 stuff

The X-Planes and countless other prototype high speed aircraft/spy planes were tested at Area 51.

[Red Devil]

that doesnt explain the alien with razor sharp teeth and the tinfoil that doesnt tear

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
www.davidicke.com

and....I agree about the black ops/Area 51 stuff

The X-Planes and countless other prototype high speed aircraft/spy planes were tested at Area 51.

Yea.. I tend to believe that is all part of the secret US research and development project. It was what.. some 10 years before we were told about the Stealth planes and their technology? Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they are working on freaky aircraft of some sort.

But.. I also believe that there is life on other planets. Intelligent life.

I think it would be extremely arrogant of ourselves to think otherwise. Mathmatically speaking, it's very, very probable.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Mathmatically speaking, it's very, very probable. >>

Care to justify?

[Black Jesus]

I'm skeptical on whether or not there is very intelligent life out there. Humans are an extreme anomaly, we probably shouldn't even still be around.


TYPO

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Black Jesus]

[Makkah]

<< Mathmatically speaking, it's very, very probable. >>

Care to justify?>>


Billions of other stars, billions of different planets, I'd say it's quite probable.


rht

[CrystalTears]

I do believe there is life on other planets. I'm in agreement with Park that it would be a very arrogant stance to believe that we're the only sentient or intelligent life in the universe.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Billions of other stars, billions of different planets, I'd say it's quite probable. >>

There could be an infinite number of planets, it still doesn't mean that life on other planets is even remotely probable.

I mean, using that logic, then with all the trillions of trillions of planets out there, it's very probable that one planet has a giant marshmellow man. Both arguments are, you named it... statistical fallacies.

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Billions of other stars, billions of different planets, I'd say it's quite probable. >>

There could be an infinite number of planets, it still doesn't mean that life on other planets is even remotely probable.

I mean, using that logic, then with all the 100s billions of planets out there, it's very probable that one planet has a giant marshmellow man. Both arguments are, you named it... statistical fallacies.

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

How many marshmellow men do you actually know Kranar? Maybe that is something you need to discuss with a trained professional.

Other planets have been proven. Other solar systems have been proven. Other galaxies have been proven. If you take a very conservative estimate on the number of planets that are possibly out there.. you would be in the hundreds of trillions plus.

Statistically speaking.. it is very very possible that one other planet in this universe has some sort of life out there.

Since marshmellows consist of refined sugar, it's statistically improbably there is a sentient being made of it on another planet.

Sorry Kranar... I know you have dreams. :)

[Xcalibur]

man it is proven that there was water before on Mars.
If TWO planets on our system could had life, and one of them actually had it, then it's reasonable to say that there's life outside.

And i think we would be surprised to see aliens, i don't think there are those huge insects or green little smartasses.
If we are the greatest mamels here, on earth, it's surely for a reason.

[imported_Kranar]

<< How many marshmellow men do you actually know Kranar? Maybe that is something you need to discuss with a trained professional. >>

How many aliens do you know?

<< Other planets have been proven. Other solar systems have been proven. Other galaxies have been proven. If you take a very conservative estimate on the number of planets that are possibly out there.. you would be in the hundreds of trillions plus. >>

10^23 planets.

<< Statistically speaking.. it is very very possible that one other planet in this universe has some sort of life out there. >>

Justify it.

Saying that just because there are 10^23 planets in the universe, another one surely must have life on it, is as good as me saying that with 10^23 planets, one of them must have a marshmellow man on it.

<< Since marshmellows consist of refined sugar, it's statistically improbably there is a sentient being made of it on another planet. >>

Fine... the marshmellow man consists of something else, it doesn't matter what he's made of. Don't focus on the technicality, that's a straw man argument and you know it. Replace marshmellow man with dwarf, or halfling, or unicorn. The point remains the same, it's a statistical fallacy to believe that because there are so many of something, that one of them must satisfy your condition.

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

<< man it is proven that there was water before on Mars. >>

Water can be found in many other places than Mars. H20, big deal?

<< And i think we would be surprised to see aliens, i don't think there are those huge insects or green little smartasses. >>

Come on man... look how many planets there are. There's gotta be huge insect-like aliens on them, I mean with 10^23 planets out there surely one of them has a large insect-like alien on it.

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[Xcalibur]

Moaï on the eastern island are the representation of what? don't forget that that culture was not influenced by any.



The "gods" of egpyt, and the "theory" that no ancient civilizations could had construct the pyamids?

Stonehedge and that weird hill on south-western england?
The strange circles every now and then?
the damn "bermuds" triangle?

man, on our own planet we have enough strange manifestation to think that we were visited, often
no?

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Xcalibur]

[imported_Kranar]

<< Moaï on the eastern island are the representation of what? don't forget that that culture was not influenced by any. >>

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't know if aliens exist or not. I just know that saying they likely exist because there are trillions of trillions of planets is a fallacy and an absurd argument to make when you really think about it.

[CrystalTears]

Why is that absurd? You really believe that are NO other signs of life anywhere other than the Earth? I can't or will I believe that.

[Edited on 6/24/2003 by CrystalTears]

[imported_Kranar]

I simply said I don't know. There could be, or there may not be. What I do know is that I'm not going to accept that there likely is life on another planet because there are so many planets out there. You could justify anything using that logic, which makes it absurd, and besides it's simply a logical fallacy, the fallacy of statistical accident. I tend to avoid any fallacious argument no matter how good it sounds simply out of principle. If something is so convincing that I should believe it's true, then I'd expect one can use a non-fallacious argument to convince me of it.

That's why I asked for a justification.

Now of course people are free to believe there is life. Infact it's important that some do and that others continue searching for it or researching it. That's what a hypothesis is all about, and all great scientific achievements come from a hypothesis. But like I said, apart from hearing people believe in it for personal reasons, or because they have faith in it, I've yet to hear any evidence that life exists other than the planet earth, and the statistical fallacy neither proves or disproves it.

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[CrystalTears]

Do you need physical proof to believe in something?

[Black Jesus]

Kranar's skepticism is reasonable from a logical standpoint (as defined by logic.) I'm not sure how practical it is though. If I had to bet on it, I would say there is life out there somewhere, but I wouldn't be completely surprised if there wasn't.

I'm convinced that Earth has never been visited by advanced extraterrestials; especially not when humans were here. The pyramids and all those other structures are really not that impressive if you think about it. Do you realize that all these people had to do was eat, sleep, and work on these things? There was no 9 to 5 grind everyday. There was little entertainment. In prosperous civilians architecture was always considered important and rulers spent countless man hours developing, testing, and constructing. Look at the engineering developments that have occurred in the past 100 years. This alone should be more than enough to convince anyone that it is within human capacity to build pyramids with primitive tools.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Do you need physical proof to believe in something? >>

Not at all. Infact it was a mathematician himself who showed that there infinitely many things that are true, but not provable. Truth is far more complex than proof.

But... that aside, I'm not saying aliens don't exist. I'd like to know one way or another, but I simply don't, and as far as this issue goes, I'd much rather admit my ignorance than take one side or another.

Yes it would be nice for aliens to exist, I would be more than facinated and overwhelmed. I'd see it as an enlightenment, but I don't really think the universe cares how I feel. If aliens are out there, it will have nothing to do with whether I want them to exist, and it will have nothing to do with how many planets there are in the universe.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Look at the engineering developments that have occurred in the past 100 years. This alone should be more than enough to convince anyone that it is within human capacity to build pyramids with primitive tools. >>

How ironic that statement is. We are so amazed by the wonders of the past, that some of us believe aliens must have helped us, yet when it comes to the wonders of recent times, we simply take them for granted.

Interesting observation.

[imported_Kranar]

<< If I had to bet on it, I would say there is life out there somewhere, but I wouldn't be completely surprised if there wasn't. >>

Just as an aside... casino's make good money off of the statistical fallacies that many people make when gambling.

"the number 47's come up 10 times in a row, it's gotta come up for an eleventh time... put me down for 1 million dollars! Noooooooo..."

[Edited on 6-24-2003 by Kranar]

[Xcalibur]

I believe, that if we can prove that there isn't any life anywhere else beside here, that God trully exist, without any doubt.
We should feel that we're damn lucky

[Black Jesus]

Kranar: There is no fallacy, it's more lie I consider the probability that life exists beyond earth to be greater than the chance it doesn't exist. Therefore I would bet that way. Would you take 49/100 odds over 51/100?

Xcalibur: How would be lucky? What other fate could we have possibily had?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Moaï on the eastern island are the representation of what? don't forget that that culture was not influenced by any. >>

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't know if aliens exist or not. I just know that saying they likely exist because there are trillions of trillions of planets is a fallacy and an absurd argument to make when you really think about it.

Actually... your argument that there are 10^23 planets having nothing to do with the possibility of life on those planets is absurd.

And the presence of water on a planet is indeed a very big deal when talking about life. It's the basis of all life here on this planet.

[imported_Kranar]

Yes, there may be a higher probability of life than no life. That could be true and I wish I knew. But that probability is independent of the number of planets in the universe. There could be an infinite number of planets in this universe it wouldn't change a thing.

<< Actually... your argument that there are 10^23 planets having nothing to do with the possibility of life on those planets is absurd. >>

There are more stars than that too... so I guess there's life on other stars. Heck, there are 10^71 atoms in the universe, so I guess that means there's life on other atoms! Heck, with all these big numbers I can prove any silly fallacy I want. The probability that an exact replica of the CN tower exists on another planet... very probable. The probability that a President Bush alien is out there in the universe... oh heck yeah, very probably too, I mean there are trillions of trillions of planets out there, surely one of them has a President Bush alien clone.

Ah ParkBandit you really do crack me up... I love your arguments, always just a blanket strawman argument with nothing to support it, and then some unrelated comment like "Keep dreaming Kranar! I wish I could live in your world."

If only the people I debated with on an academic level could debate like you do. It would make my life a lot easier.

Oh and next time you're at a casino, and the number 47 shows up 10 times in a row... please, bet all your life savings on 47 :lol:

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by Kranar]

[Black Jesus]

Agreed. It has to do with the amount of planets capable of sustaining life. And there obviously is no reliable statistic, I merely used that to demonstrate an example of the probability I may choose to assign based on my extremely limited know of astrology, geology, and biology. I'm in no way trying to argue that there is life or isn't out there, just saying which side I lean towards in my indecision.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
Yes, there may be a higher probability of life than no life. That could be true and I wish I knew. But that probability is independent of the number of planets in the universe. There could be an infinite number of planets in this universe it wouldn't change a thing.

<< Actually... your argument that there are 10^23 planets having nothing to do with the possibility of life on those planets is absurd. >>

There are more stars than that too... so I guess there's life on other stars. Heck, there are 10^71 atoms in the universe, so I guess that means there's life on other atoms! Heck, with all these big numbers I can prove any silly fallacy I want. The probability that an exact replica of the CN tower exists on another planet... very probable. The probability that a President Bush alien is out there in the universe... oh heck yeah, very probably too, I mean there are trillions of trillions of planets out there, surely one of them has a President Bush alien clone.


Unfortunately Kranar.. the number of stars that could support life or the number of atoms that could support life has no bearing on this debate as we have no benchmark to prove such things. We do know there is life on a planet though. We do know there are some 10^23 more planets out there. We do know that statistically speaking it is possible that life does exist on one of those other 10^23 planets.

I'm not sure about your Bush clone though. I am talking just about life.. not anything specific as your Bush clone or your marshmellow man.



Originally posted by KranarAh ParkBandit you really do crack me up... I love your arguments, always just a blanket strawman argument with nothing to support it, and then some unrelated comment like "Keep dreaming Kranar! I wish I could live in your world."

Unfortunately Kranar.. when debating things with you.. you tend to bring in things that really aren't part of the debate... life on the sun... life on atoms.. cloned Bushes... marshmellow men... Since I have no benchmarks for such.. fantasies.. I can only dismiss them as your dreams and the work of an overactive imagination.


Originally posted by KranarIf only the people I debated with on an academic level could debate like you do. It would make my life a lot easier.

I just wish you would stick with the facts or at least 'normal' type theories. I can't debate your fantasies.


Originally posted by KranarOh and next time you're at a casino, and the number 47 shows up 10 times in a row... please, bet all your life savings on 47 :lol:

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by Kranar]

Actually... I would bet against 47 coming up again. I would never bet my life savings on it though... as there is normally a pretty small table limit to such bets.

[Prestius]

>>There could be an infinite number of planets, it still doesn't mean that life on other planets is even remotely probable.

I mean, using that logic, then with all the trillions of trillions of planets out there, it's very probable that one planet has a giant marshmellow man. Both arguments are, you named it... statistical fallacies. <<

This is an interesting discussion. However I think it's important that you separate the "life in the universe" question, "ufos visiting earth" question. Based on the numbers and research I've seen I feel pretty confident that there;s some sort of life (as we define it) out there somewhere. Intellegent life? A lot less likely, but still possible.

UFOs visiting earth? Why would some civilization advanced enough to master space travel come visit some non-descript planet in a solar system in one arm of typical spiral galaxy that is one of thousands of galaxies in a supergroup amongst millions of galaxies? Oh .. it's a government coverup! Amazing that they only visit countries with the means to cover them up!

Looking for an intelligent and well thought out look a the possibility of life in the universe? I suggest you do a Search on "The Drake Equation" It lays out several parameters factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.

Based on how you estimate the numbers, the figures come up with anywhere from 100 to 2400 "communicating" civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

-P

[imported_Kranar]

Ah well... keep up with your stawman arguments. You have yet to acknowledge the primary argument, which means you're either afraid to touch it, or you don't understand it. So instead you just focus on technicalities, set yourself a nice strawman based on technicalities, and then beat the strawman down.

I'll be happy to know that atleast some people (BlackJesus) understand the point I'm making.

<< Looking for an intelligent and well thought out look a the possibility of life in the universe? I suggest you do a Search on "The Drake Equation" It lays out several parameters factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. >>

Yes, unfortunately it's just so vague that one can get any answer they want out of the equation. The equation is so ambiguous I can use it to generate 0 planets in this galaxy, meaning even earth doesn't have life on it, or I can generate 3 million planets with life on it.

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by Kranar]

[Prestius]

>> Yes, unfortunately it's just so vague that one can get any answer they want out of the equation. The equation is so ambiguous I can use it to generate 0 planets in this galaxy, meaning even earth doesn't have life on it, or I can generate 3 million planets with life on it. >>

Admittedly there are some issues with the equation, however it at least attempts to some form around the raw "statisical" aspect you have been arguing. I understand where you are coming from with that, and of course you can skew the numbers anyway you want.

With Drakes equation, the first three factors are astronomical numbers, and I think we can agree that some pretty well founded estimations can be made for those numbers. The second two are biological and while there is some basis for making estimations here, clearly you can argue that these are less fact based. That last two factors are truly wild cards. In essence those can be tweaked with impunity to give whatever result you desire.

However, let's take those out. Let's not look for Communicating life .. or even intelligent life. Let's just look for life of any form? For that we only really need the first 4 factors.

What we are looking for is an "earth-like" planet anywhere in the Milky Way. We can come up with a round number estimate for the number of G3 stars. I think we can make some logical assumptions that at least some percentage of those will have planetary systems. From there it's a larger guess for how many with planetary systems have at least one planet in "the golden zone", not too close - not too far from the star. Still, can you concede that there is at least some liklihood that this condition could be met somewhere else?

From there we get a bit more tenuous. How exactly does life occur (wow, we're on the God thread now!). However, I think that just the Milky Way alone gives us a pretty good sample size for all manner of possibilities to occur.

Again .. Drake's Equation isn't perfect, but at least it gives some substance to the numbers, and a place to begin an honest discussion about

I think to dismiss the possibility of life out there based solely on raw numbers is as fallatious as using the same raw numbers to claim there is!

-P

[Parkbandit]

And you've yet to provide any real basis for your stand as well Kranar.

My whole argument is that it would be arrogant of us not to believe there is the possibility of life on other planets given the sheer number of suitable planets. Your side of the argument is "Prove it" or "Doesn't mean anything"

<<Yes, unfortunately it's just so vague that one can get any answer they want out of the equation. The equation is so ambiguous I can use it to generate 0 planets in this galaxy, meaning even earth doesn't have life on it, or I can generate 3 million planets with life on it>>

Using our own solar system as a model.. it's impossible to come up with zero. Since our solar system is the only solar system we know anything about... using anything else would simply be illogical. And that's only life in our galaxy.. there are what.. some 200 billion galaxies as well? Multiply that one out. I took 600 billion stars, 5% in each of the questions and 1% for the fraction of the planet's life. It comes out as 112,500 different planets that intelligent life exists. That doesn't include ANY life that doesn't communicate.

The sheer number of planets where life is possible is simply too great to chalk up to "Doesn't mean anything".

[Warriorbird]

::SMACK!::

Thus I refute Descartes.

[imported_Kranar]

<< With Drakes equation, the first three factors are astronomical numbers, and I think we can agree that some pretty well founded estimations can be made for those numbers. The second two are biological and while there is some basis for making estimations here, clearly you can argue that these are less fact based. That last two factors are truly wild cards. In essence those can be tweaked with impunity to give whatever result you desire. >>

Drake's equation can not be used to determine the probability of life existing elsewhere, because the entire equation assumes that life does infact evolve elsewhere, and given that it does, it seeks to answer how much of that life is intelligent. Now you suggest taking out the last three factors, that leaves us with:

N - number of stars in the galaxy
Fp - fraction of stars with planets orbiting
Ne - number of planets that are ecologically inhabitable

And the last factor is

Fi - fraction of planets where life DOES evolve.

That last factor begs the question if we are to determine the odds of life existing elsewhere, since that factor assumes we already know the answer. That last factor basically states that one in so and so planets has life on it, so if there are X number of planets, then there are nessecarily Y number of planets with life on it. That factor is the very question we're asking. So for true believers in extraterrestrial life, that factor would be high (thus there are plenty of planets with life on it). For skeptics, that factor would be 0 (thus there is no life on other planets). And for me, since that's the question I have yet to answer, that factor is a nice big question mark (meaning the result of the equation is also a nice big question mark). Thus, the conclusion becomes redundant as prejudiced by the question.

That's why increasing the number of planets does nothing to increase the probability of life existing elsewhere. Do you believe already that 1 in 1000 planets, or 1 in 1 trillion planets have life on them? If so, then you know you're answer, the answer is yes, there is a good chance there is life on other planets. But there is no basis on which to base that probability, it is based on faith and faith alone. For me, I think 1 in (?) planets have life on them, so for me there's a high probability that life does or does not exist. That (?) could be 10, it could be infinite, I simply don't know.

Drake's equation wasn't even meant to answer whether life exists on other planets, because the equation is based on the premise that life already does exist on other planets. It wishes to answer that given the fact that life exists elsewhere, how much of it is intelligent.

So... here's my question to you, since I do respect the opinion you've presented. What is your basis for believing that Fi is anything other than 0?

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by Kranar]

[Black Jesus]

Yea, Drake's equation is useless

[Jenisi]

So with all these big numbers Unicorns really do exsist?!!? Say it's so!!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar

So... here's my question to you, since I do respect the opinion you've presented. What is your basis for believing that Fi is anything other than 0?

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by Kranar]

Due to the overwhelming number of fossil records on this planet, many believe that evolution is a natural process not unique to only one planet in the universe.

[Xcalibur]

mutant, those that has new characteristics over his fellow people
I have one more vertebra, so i'm a mutant!

it's true that we don't even know much about our own system, maybe there can be some life that can live with -200 celsius?

[Prestius]

>> That's why increasing the number of planets does nothing to increase the probability of life existing elsewhere. Do you believe already that 1 in 1000 planets, or 1 in 1 trillion planets have life on them? If so, then you know you're answer, the answer is yes, there is a good chance there is life on other planets. But there is no basis on which to base that probability, it is based on faith and faith alone. For me, I think 1 in (?) planets have life on them, so for me there's a high probability that life does or does not exist. That (?) could be 10, it could be infinite, I simply don't know <<

Ok .. let's make a few basic assumptions.

Would you agree that in order for *some* for of life to occur, certain conditions must be met? Let's even narrow that down to "life as we know it" and not some intelligent shade of blue or something. Can we agree that that what you need is a not too big, not to small, relatively stable star with a planetary system with at least one planet in "the golden zone" (i.e. not too far from, not too close to the star)?

Cleary that's been met at least once, since we are all here typing back and forth to each other.

This is where the first portion of Drake's equation is useful. It allows you to make some educated guesses as to how many other planets like ours might exist.

I'll agree that the fourth term, Fl makes an assumption that life *will* evolve, and as a skeptic you find this suspect.

If we can definitively state that the earth is a truly unique condition in the universe, and that the only way for life to evolve is for an Earthlike planet to exist, then we can rule out life elsewhere. P=0

However, once we make the leap to say that there *are* in fact other planets like ours out there somewhere, then the probability of there being life elsewhere is now greater than 0. It may be just barely greater than 0, of course. That we just don't know.

So .. is life elsewhere likely? Hard to say. Again, that depends on how conservative you are with the numbers. But, is there some probability that there is life out there? I have to say yes.

-P

[Ramos]

Originally posted by Kranar
And the last factor is

Fi - fraction of planets where life DOES evolve.

So... here's my question to you, since I do respect the opinion you've presented. What is your basis for believing that Fi is anything other than 0?


What is the basis for believing that Fi is greater than 0?

Because life happened on at least one planet.

Also, the fact that life occurred on Earth soon after its formation, as soon as it cooled and the oceans formed, suggests that life may not be an unlikely occurance when conditions are right.

If you eat one berry from a bush and it blisters your tongue, you do not eat another. Statistically speaking, you cannot say from the one instance that all the berries on the bush will blister your tongue. But humans are capable of extrapolating from incomplete information. We do not need a statistical sample to know intuitively that other berries on the bush are likely to blister our tongue.

I do understand your argument though. We know of only one instance where life has arisen. Anything we extrapolate from that single instance could be wrong. Maybe a truly unique set of conditions, so improbable as to never be repeatable elsewhere, caused life to form here. But the same intuition that causes me not to eat another berry also causes me to believe that life elsewhere is very likely.

[Zanagodly]

Unless these aliens have found a way to travel faster than the speed of light, then UFO's have never been in our orbit.

[Red Devil]

I heard scientists were splicing human genes into mice, and the animal rights activists were getting mad because they didnt want to have meices mating with other meices and creating a rat-human hybrid, ill find the article if anyone wants to read it

[Black Jesus]

Actually if you can post an article about midgets that would be cooler.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Zanagodly
Unless these aliens have found a way to travel faster than the speed of light, then UFO's have never been in our orbit.

if you just follow the theory of light speed, it's impossible indeed.

So it leave only one conclusion, an other mean of travel (surely black hole or crossing dimensions)

[imported_Kranar]

<< if you just follow the theory of light speed, it's impossible indeed. >>

If there's one thing the special theory of relativity teaches, it's that one can travel to any point in the universe, in as little time as they choose.

[Xcalibur]

e=mc²?
never heard of that, about the fact that you could travel that fast, not high school, nor college, nor university... care to elaborate my dear canadian (haha) brother?

[imported_Kranar]

E = mc^2 is usually mistaken to be a consequence of special relativity, when infact it's not a direct consequence. It has to do something known as the Compton Effect where a physicist by the name of Compton showed that a particle of light carries momentum equal to the energy of the particle, divided by its speed. What Einstein had to do, in a thought experiment, was show that the momentum that light carries (p = E/c) is the same as the momentum that mass carries (p = mv). Once that was done, Einstein was able to equate the two equations, so he got E/c = mv, and since v = c for light, you end up with E/c = mc, and you multiply both sides of the equation by c, and you end up with E = mc^2. Einstein just wrote about the formula and Special Relativity at the same time.

That equation states that mass is just another form of energy, and so you can convert mass into electrical energy, or heat energy, or kinetic energy, or whatever form of enery you want because they're all the same things.

Now speaking of energy, the formula that limits ones velocity to light speed is:

Kinetic Energy = (Mr * c^2) * [1 / squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2) - 1]

v is velocity
Mr is rest mass
c is speed of light

So if you plug in the numbers, you see that to get a velocity equal to light, you need an infinite amount of energy, and since there isn't an infinite amount of energy available in the universe, it's therefore impossible to travel at light speed.

The reason light is able to travel at such a speed, is because it has no rest mass, so the equation ends up being indeterminant (you end up with 0/0). And as one should know from calculus/analysis, an indeterminant result means that the answer can take on any single value depending on what factors generated the result. So light therefore can travel at light speed, and only require a finite amount of energy, which depends on its wavelength.

Actually, anything that doesn't have a mass not only can travel at light speed, but MUST travel at light speed.

And as Black Jesus pointed out earlier, if something travels at light speed, time for the traveller comes to a complete halt, and the volume of the universe shrinks to 0. So photons don't experience anytime, and they don't experience any space, hence if someone were travelling on a photon they could go from anywhere in the universe, to anywhere else, and not have aged a single second.

Cool stuff, indeed.

[Edited on 6-26-2003 by Kranar]

[Xcalibur]

Kranar, you'Re sure about that?
let's pretend that some Aliens got that technology...

If they do, the argument that : "why the damn hell would they come here since we're primitive and stupid" is not good, since they can be everywhere in any second. So if one do have that technology, holy crap, we're doom!

stupid question: COULD you reverse time with light speed?

[imported_Kranar]

<< Kranar, you'Re sure about that? >>

You bet I am.

<< If they do, the argument that : "why the damn hell would they come here since we're primitive and stupid" is not good, since they can be everywhere in any second. So if one do have that technology, holy crap, we're doom! >>

But re-examine your premise. Your conclusion rests on a very BIG if. First, aliens must exist, a very big if; second, aliens must have FAR superior technology, another very big if; third, aliens must know about our existence and our location.

<< stupid question: COULD you reverse time with light speed? >>

No. Those with a sub-par grasp of Special Relativity (aka science fiction writers), have always argued that travelling faster than light allows an individual to go back in time.

For very technical reasons, going faster than light does not permit you to go back in time.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Kranar

But re-examine your premise. Your conclusion rests on a very BIG if. First, aliens must exist, a very big if; second, aliens must have FAR superior technology, another very big if; third, aliens must know about our existence and our location.




you could easily remove the third If, since if aliens do exist, with the technology to reach light speed, they could travel everywhere in no time. Just think of the possibilities, you know everything in 0 seconds, since you can be everywhere in 0 seconds.

But as you said, it's impossible?
if it's impossible, if it's proven that you CANNOT reach light speed, but close to it, let's say 200,000 km/seconds, that would takes AEONS to reach an other system, right?

So if light speed is not possible, and crossing dimension ( a la black hole?) is not possible, then we'll likely never know what's trully outside of the Milky way?

[imported_Kranar]

<< if it's impossible, if it's proven that you CANNOT reach light speed, but close to it, let's say 200,000 km/seconds, that would takes AEONS to reach an other system, right? >>

Here... have some fun.

t' = t*squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2)

So if you traveled at 200,000 kilometres a second, you could go from one end of this galaxy, to the other end in 75,000 years. If you go at 299,999 kilometres a second, it would take you 10 years. And if you went at exactly the speed of light, like I said, and just plug it into that equation, it would take you 0 seconds.

<< So if light speed is not possible, and crossing dimension ( a la black hole?) is not possible, then we'll likely never know what's trully outside of the Milky way? >>

Correct. Everything we know about other galaxies, is extremely outdated. When we see how other galaxies look using a telescope, we see how they looked billions of years ago. It is impossible for us to see how galaxies look today.

[Xcalibur]

cause of the time of the light, right? (if i remember my physical sciiences course, if the sun suddently goes off, we'll have his light for 6 minutes cause it takes 6 minutes to reach Earth?)

So, Kranar, if what you say is true, and I believe it is, what's the point of SETI programs and such, since we only get vague outdated informations about stuff that happened aeons ago?

We'll end out colonizing the moon and Mars, and that will be about it, man, we're screwed!
What about dimension crossing travelling, you know about it? is there "real" theories-facts about it?

[imported_Kranar]

<< cause of the time of the light, right? (if i remember my physical sciiences course, if the sun suddently goes off, we'll have his light for 6 minutes cause it takes 6 minutes to reach Earth?) >>

8 minutes, but yes, you're correct in principle.

<< So, Kranar, if what you say is true, and I believe it is, what's the point of SETI programs and such, since we only get vague outdated informations about stuff that happened aeons ago? >>

The best answer I can give you is to check out a primary source for that answer. www.seti.org is one on the net you can check.

<< What about dimension crossing travelling, you know about it? is there "real" theories-facts about it? >>

Of course there are. Granted a lot of crap you see in science fiction movies is just bogus, there still are many viable hypotheses on how to travel using hyperspace, or as you refer to it, cutting through a dimension. Worm holes are possible, but it's unlikely, if not impossible, that we'd be able to survive such a journey.

[Black Jesus]

When talking about near light speed travel many people are neglecting to consider the mass factor. When your speed increases so does your mass. Because the curve is exponential, the change is infinitesimal at the slow speeds of which we are capable. Get to .99c and your body will be absurdly massive and dense. It would crush itself.

[Ramos]

Originally posted by Black Jesus
When talking about near light speed travel many people are neglecting to consider the mass factor. When your speed increases so does your mass. Because the curve is exponential, the change is infinitesimal at the slow speeds of which we are capable. Get to .99c and your body will be absurdly massive and dense. It would crush itself.

You only become more massive as measured by a stationary observer (or more specifically, an observer relative to whom you are moving at .99c). To you, it's the observer that is moving at .99c and becoming more massive, while your mass stays the same.

[Black Jesus]

well i'll be damned. i didn't kno that (obviously)

[imported_Kranar]

<< well i'll be damned. i didn't kno that (obviously) >>

Well, just keep in mind the symmetry of every single measurement. If you see the length of the universe contract, then others see your length contract. If others see your mass increase, you see the mass of others increase. If others see your clock slowing down, you see the clocks of others slowing down, and so on so forth.

[Neildo]

>>>>Correct. Everything we know about other galaxies, is extremely outdated. When we see how other galaxies look using a telescope, we see how they looked billions of years ago. It is impossible for us to see how galaxies look today<<<<

Wouldn't that then increase the chance of there being life on other planets due to stars, planets, and the like evolving/forming after those billions of years have passed? If one planet currently looks like a prime spot for life to be, just imagine the possibilities of what could have happened with that planet a few billion years later. ;)

Not only that, but when we look through a telescope to see how galaxies looked billions of years ago, isn't that sort of creating a still moment, a picture, a pause in time, and the like? With that happening, does that also increase the odds of time travel being possible? Those images of galaxies is sort of like an afterburner trail from a jet or missle in the sky yet much more complex.

Imagine being able to travel fast enough to keep up with the images of the past that are racing through space as time goes on. Doesn't that sort of reinforce the theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light, you can go back in time? Also the theory that if you do go faster than the speed of light, when you reach your destination, your starting point won't be what it once was due to time speeding up so quickly. Basically you never aged but everyone back home did.

That sounds a bit confusing, but to make it a bit more understandable, think of the telescope images that are actually billions of years old. Imagine teleporting from that galaxy to ours. You know what time it was when you left, but when you look back from where you are now, you see that those images/light/etc hasn't yet caught up to you so everything looks so primative compared to what it was when you left.

- N

PS - For the heck of it, this website is some pretty interesting reading for people in this topic. Check out the essay competition too:

http://www.nidsci.org/

[imported_Kranar]

<< Wouldn't that then increase the chance of there being life on other planets due to stars, planets, and the like evolving/forming after those billions of years have passed? >>

Once again, the gambler's fallacy, or technically the statistical accident fallacy.

If life exists, it has nothing to do with the fact that a planet is billions of years in the past when we look at it. A planet doesn't just decide to have life on it because it's billions of light years away and some guy is looking at it using a telescope. Just the same way that a planet doesn't decide to have life on it because it's the trillionth planet. These are all independent factors.

If the odds of rolling a 6, are 1 in 6, then it doesn't matter if I have 1 die, or a trillion dice, the odds are always still 1 in 6. If the odds of life existing elsewhere are 0, then it doesn't matter if there are infinitely many planets in the universe, or if they are located a billion light years away... the odds are still 0.

There is no evidence at all that the odds of life occuring elsewhere are anything other than 0, and the number of planets will not change that, just like the number of dice doesn't change the odds of a 6 showing up.

Anything else, is just a case of the gambler's fallacy, and casino's love to make money from such assumptions.

<< Doesn't that sort of reinforce the theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light, you can go back in time? >>

That's what sci-fi writers love to assume:

Well if as one gets closer to the speed of light, time starts slowing down, and when someone goes at the speed of light, time freezes, then when someone goes faster than light, time must go backwards!

It doesn't work like that, for technical reasons, and the assumption is the fallacy of false dilemma.

Interesting site by the way. I will make sure to look at it in depth tomorrow.

[Edited on 6-29-2003 by Kranar]

[Caels]

I'd much rather have a trillion 1:6 than a single 1:6... statistically, 1/6th of that trillion would land on 6.

[Ramos]

In 1974, an astronomer named Frank Tipler published a solution to Einstein's relativity equations that suggested a way to move backward in time. It requires spiraling around the surface of a long, dense, rapidly rotating cylinder. The cylinder, however, must be several times the mass of the Sun, with density approaching that of a neutron star, and rotating at millions or billions of times per second. Some sources say for the mathematics to work properly, it must be infinitely long, where others say a few thousand miles would be enough, as long as you stay near the center.

[Xcalibur]

Personnaly i think that travelling through time should be impossible, otherwise there would be too much problems concerning it, of course there are 2 "theories" about it

1= all life are on one way, so if i travel through time and kill the mother of someone before he was born and i get to my time, he won't be there at all and no one will know about him (i find that one difficult)

2= each of us lives into our own dimension, so if i go through time and kill the mom of X, X will still live and see no difference..

it's illogical to say that if i kill someone's parents before he was born, that person will never exist, as if it was my case, i'll simply vanish...

It's illogical in the same time that if i kill someone's parent and go back to my original time, he'll be there, since his parents are gone.

that's why i think it's impossible, too much possibilities

[Black Jesus]

you cannot go back in time but you can slow your time dilation down and kind of fake going forward in time

[imported_Kranar]

<< I'd much rather have a trillion 1:6 than a single 1:6... statistically, 1/6th of that trillion would land on 6. >>

And yet still... none of them would land on 7.

[imported_Kranar]

<< In 1974, an astronomer named Frank Tipler published a solution to Einstein's relativity equations that suggested a way to move backward in time. >>

Only thing is... since Tipler's Time Machine loops space time around on itself, one can only travel back in time up to the point when the machine was created.

So if someone created the machine today, then 2000 years from now, someone could use it to travel back to today, but someone today could not use it to travel 2000 years in the past.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar


Once again, the gambler's fallacy, or technically the statistical accident fallacy.

If the odds of rolling a 6, are 1 in 6, then it doesn't matter if I have 1 die, or a trillion dice, the odds are always still 1 in 6.

Anything else, is just a case of the gambler's fallacy, and casino's love to make money from such assumptions.


[Edited on 6-29-2003 by Kranar]

Hmm.

Alright, so then if a Casino lets say offers you the chance to double your money on a bet if you roll a 6 on a single roll of a six sided dice at one table and offers you one hundred chances at a second table for the same outlay, that you would not amble on down to table number two?

[imported_Kranar]

<< Alright, so then if a Casino lets say offers you the chance to double your money on a bet if you roll a 6 on a single roll of a six sided dice at one table and offers you one hundred chances at a second table for the same outlay, that you would not amble on down to table number two? >>

I'd have a 99.99987925 percent chance of rolling a 6.

But no... what I'm saying is that if both tables offered me the same chance to double my money if I rolled a 7... it wouldn't make one bit of a difference which table I pick, even if Table 2 offered me a trillion trillion chances (which is the number of planets in the universe).

Is rolling a 7 possible? If yes, the answer will have nothing to do with the number of dice that are out there.

Is life on other planets possible? If yes, the answer will have nothing to do with the number of planets out there.

I can't make it any simpler than that. I can respect Ramos' and Prestius' arguments on the possibility of life out there. Notice how their arguments didn't mention anything about there being a billion planets or a trillion planets but instead focused directly on the issue. Those arguments, while I'm not totally convinced on their validity yet, are atleast arguments I must acknowledge and are pretty sound.

My only problem with their arguments goes back to what I was originally saying. There is no other reason to believe in life on other planets other than faith. Ramos uses his intuition to believe in life on other planets, his instinct tells him so. Prestius too feels the same way. And faith isn't such a bad reason to believe in life on other planets, for faith is what drives a scientist to prove a hypothesis. However, faith isn't a scientific reason for believing in life on other planets, for there are many skeptics who have faith that life does not exist elsewhere, and given that faith is such a fundamental and unprovable assumption one makes, I am in no position to pick the believers faith over the skeptics faith, not until the hypothesis has been proven one way or the other.

[Edited on 6-29-2003 by Kranar]

[Prestius]

>> My only problem with their arguments goes back to what I was originally saying. There is no other reason to believe in life on other planets other than faith. Ramos uses his intuition to believe in life on other planets, his instinct tells him so. Prestius too feels the same way. And faith isn't such a bad reason to believe in life on other planets, for faith is what drives a scientist to prove a hypothesis. However, faith isn't a scientific reason for believing in life on other planets, for there are many skeptics who have faith that life does not exist elsewhere, and given that faith is such a fundamental and unprovable assumption one makes, I am in no position to pick the believers faith over the skeptics faith, not until the hypothesis has been proven one way or the other. <<

Actually, I'm not sure I'd use the word "faith" to describe my position. Obviously Stonehenge, Crop-circles and Easter Island notwithstanding, until we have irrefutable evidence, no-one state with absolute certainty that there is life elsewhere.

My position is simply a logical extrapolation of some known facts. To whit:

1) The conditions for life to occur were met on Earth. [fact]

2) There are other planetary systems in the universe. [fact]

3) There is some probability that the same conditions that led to life exist(ed) on earth also exist elsewhere in the universe. [conjecture]

4) Ergo, there is some probability that there is some form of life elsewhere in the Universe. [hypothesis]


The "numbers" argument comes into play when looking at statements 2 and 3 above, Clearly we aren't looking for a 6-sided die with a 7 on it because statement 1 is true. The number of stars has a direct impact on the number of possible planetary systems. The number of planetary systems has an impact on the number of possible planetary earth-like conditions, which has given us life in the universe at least once.

-P

[Ramos]

Originally posted by Kranar
There is no other reason to believe in life on other planets other than faith.

Yeah, I'm not sure I would call it "faith". It might be faith if I believed with certainty, and were stating absolutey that there was life elsewhere. But I'm just saying that available evidence points to a strong liklihood of life elsewhere in the univserse.

We know that life occured at least once, so the probability of life occuring is not zero. Given this, the vast number of other planets is not irrelevant to the probability of life elsewhere.

Experiments have been performed trying to recreate the conditions in the primordial oceans, filling a flask with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen and using electrical sparks to simulate lightning. These experiments consistently produce amino acids, the building blocks of life. Repeated energizing and evaporation (which simulates tidal pools) produces protein-like substances that have similarities to cells.

So there is at least some evidence that lends credence to the hypothesis of life elsewhere. It's not simply blind faith.

[Neildo]

Hey, does anyone remember that incident a couple years ago that happened in Phoenix, AZ, during the Hale Bop comet? I remember watching it on the news and reading about it. The video was pretty crazy. It was a huge triangle shaped object, and I mean huge. Like the size of 20-30 bombers, heh. It was slowly moving and also had lights that showed it's massive triangle-shaped body.

Anyhow, anyone else remember that?

- N

[Neildo]

Lol, sorry, but I've been on a UFO kick lately. Anyhow, here could be the answer for why we invaded Iraq, Kranar. :P

http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/conspiracy_iraq_heritage.html


Heh, and yes, it sounds a wee bit crazy, but I don't disregard anything I read or hear. I do weight what I read and hear though, whether it's outlandish or more believable. God, imagine if all that is true though? Heh. Either way, it's interesting to read even it may not be true.

It's funny how the crazy leaders tend to believe in so much of the occult. And hey, could that article be one of the reasons why Germany didn't want us going to war with Iraq? Hitler was a huge fan of the occult and if it were all true, Germany doesn't want us getting any of that stuff.

And for those whacky people that say we're letting Jews run our country, it could all be a part of this little secret war trying to regain lost technology that first helped start advanced civiliziation in that area. Funny how that's where current religion starts too. Woo, more conspiracies, lol.

- N

[Edited on Jun th, 2003 by Neildo]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar

Is life on other planets possible? If yes, the answer will have nothing to do with the number of planets out there.

That's like asking the question of whether life on Earth was possible.. and trying to prove it as not.

Is life possible on a planet? Yes, it's happened on the planet Earth. That is the basis, pure and simple.

So, life is possible on a planet = true.

So, is life possible on another planet, given that we believe there are some trillion planets out there, I think the chances are a little better than rolling a 7 on a six sided dice.

[Neildo]

Is anyone here familiar with Planet X? It's supposedly the 10th planet in our solar system that is also known as Nibiru, which is Sumerian for "planet of the crossing". It's also known in other advanced/ancient civilizations by other names too.

Other than being known in ancient Sumerian, Mesopotamian, and other old civilizations, it was first discovered sometime in the mid 1980's but was dismissed and then later found again a couple years ago near Pluto. Then, of course, it was dismissed yet again as the largest asteroid ever seen.

Anyhow, it's a travelling planet which can go clockwise and counterclockwise depending on it's orbit with the 2nd sun. Yes, I said 2nd sun, heh. That's another reason why I brought this all up because I found some cool photos of it for everyone to check out and give their views.

From ancient text of various civilizations, Nibiru is the reason that many major disastors have happened in the past due to when it comes near contact with Earth every 3,600 years. And 2003 is when it was supposed to come into full view again and supposedly cause lots of craziness to happen. Now using Sumerian math, it actually comes out to the year 2012 when it's supposed to happen, which also happens to be the end of the Aztec calander.

If you believe in the whole aliens deal, Nibiru is supposedly where one form of them are from. They're the ones that helped start the various advanced civilizations back in the days, are the gods everyone wrote about, etc etc. Nibiru is a brown dwarf planet/star which is basically sort of a dead planet that doesn't have enough nuclear whatever it is like the sun. It's supposedly called our 2nd sun too or something.

Anyhow I'm starting to forget some stuff and I don't wanna ruin any of it by saying things wrong but here's a link to read about it and the 2nd link is one that actually has some pictures from people. Ya outta check out the sunsets some time to see if you can see it for yourself. Lemme know whatcha think. (the Santorini, Greece pics are the best)

http://www.ufoarea.bravepages.com/main_nibiru.html

http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm

- N

PS - Look what ya'll did to me by opening this topic up! :P

[Ramos]

Those web sites seem typical of the pseudoscience culture; heavy on credulity and fantastic theories, light on critical thinking and credible sources.

Ancient civilizations didn't even know of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto. Uranus was discovered in 1781. So how could they know about a tenth planet?

The second web site you gave is run by Nancy Leider, who claims, among other things, to be channeling aliens and that the Hale-Bopp comet did not exist. There is some interesting information about her and Mark Hazelwood, who writes a couple articles for the first website you listed, as well as a general debunking of "planet X", here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx

[Neildo]

Lol yeah, that Nancy chick is a nutcase. I mainly sent that link for the pictures.

- N

[Ramos]

Heh, I downloaded an mp3 of Nancy's appearance on the radio show Coast to Coast, where she and Phil Plait, the astronomer who runs the badastronomy.com website that I gave, debated planet X.

Nancy predicts on the show that planet X will be here June 1, 2003 (yep, a month ago), when it will cause catastrophic climate and tectonic events, as well as a polar shift, due to the Earth's rotation stopping for a week.

[Edited on 7-1-2003 by Ramos]

[Neildo]

Heh, if she's still alive by then, I'm sure she'll go at it again in 9 more years by saying that if doing Sumerian math, we'll all die at 2012 instead of 2003. Ya know, those minor miscalculations and all. :P

- N

[Warriorbird]

www.davidicke.com

and people pay this man money, too

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
www.davidicke.com

and people pay this man money, too

you know what's worse? the guy is probably not that far from being right..

there's too much happening on our world to pretend we're all alone.
All i hope it's that it won't be à la Star trek "first contact"

damn gene

[Neildo]

I know this one is off-topic but, heh, I found this mildly amusing from the link you gave, Conan:

http://rense.com/general38/911high.htm

In regards to the WTC attack not being done by terrorists but our goverment.

- N

[Warriorbird]

Scary. I think I'd believe that Bush was a lizard first, as little respect as I do have for him. The even scarier thing is, a fellow history student first showed that site to me. Apparently, it was the major source of someone in one of his classes disagreeing with his conclusions about World War 2 conferences. People really believe that stuff.

[Edited on 7-2-2003 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Whatever, Kranar... disillusion yourself. We ARE watching...

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Scary. I think I'd believe that Bush was a lizard first, as little respect as I do have for him. The even scarier thing is, a fellow history student first showed that site to me. Apparently, it was the major source of someone in one of his classes disagreeing with his conclusions about World War 2 conferences. People really believe that stuff.

[Edited on 7-2-2003 by Warriorbird]

Yea.. we need CLINTON back in the White House dammit! Now there's a man I could look up to, admire and fully trust.

Ah... to return to the 'good ol days'...

[Warriorbird]

Better a man that smokes dope and gets head then a man who's a recent crack addict and listens to advisers who suggest having a little war to get us out of Saudi Arabia. Just, "a little war."

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Scary. I think I'd believe that Bush was a lizard first, as little respect as I do have for him. The even scarier thing is, a fellow history student first showed that site to me. Apparently, it was the major source of someone in one of his classes disagreeing with his conclusions about World War 2 conferences. People really believe that stuff.

[Edited on 7-2-2003 by Warriorbird]

Yea.. we need CLINTON back in the White House dammit! Now there's a man I could look up to, admire and fully trust.

Ah... to return to the 'good ol days'...

Funny stuff when we start talking about trusting and admiring.

There is just so much ammunition to discredit Bush with its always shocking to me to see him raised as if he were some paragon of virtue.

Better to just leave all the moral superiority out of it in my opinion.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Better a man that smokes dope and gets head then a man who's a recent crack addict and listens to advisers who suggest having a little war to get us out of Saudi Arabia. Just, "a little war."

You're spending too much time reading the same rags Kranar is reading with nothing to back it up with.

Bush: Dammit! I have to get 5000 troops out of Saudi Arabia.. what to do, what to do...

Chaney: We could start a war for no reason.. how about Iraq? That's close.

Bush: Iraq? Hmm.. my Daddy did have a problem with them once..

Chaney: Well, we've already established a base over in Qatar... and we can easily relocate them there.. but what the hell.. let's kick some rag-heads JUST for fun!

Bush: Yea! I wanna get them back for picking on my Daddy! Let's do this!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by SkirmisherFunny stuff when we start talking about trusting and admiring.

There is just so much ammunition to discredit Bush with its always shocking to me to see him raised as if he were some paragon of virtue.

Better to just leave all the moral superiority out of it in my opinion.

When you look up "Greasy Politician" in the dictionary.. you would get: "Please see Bill Clinton"

I have no problem with him smoking or getting head... hell good for him.

I trust Bush and I believe he is acting in the best interest of the American People. I'm sorry you don't see that.

[imported_Kranar]

<< You're spending too much time reading the same rags Kranar is reading with nothing to back it up with. >>

No offense Parkbandit, but the only one making arguments with absolutely nothing to back it up is you with your stawman arguments.

Let's not be hypocrits now.

Find one quote, or one thing I've ever said in my life, where I supported Clinton. Come on... enough's enough man, quit making things up all the time.

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Kranar]

[Warriorbird]

First off, I wouldn't give Bush and Cheney that much credit...but in a way, you sort of hit it on the nose.

Now, before you make more of a fool out of yourself, look up Paul Wolfowitz, Parkbandit. He advocated war with Iraq as far back as following September 11th. The weapons of mass destruction bit was to hook the public, and yokels like I'd have hoped you weren't.

The two magazines were Vanity Fair and Newsweek, hardly "liberal rags". Even if they had been "liberal rags", well, when you're directly quoting or interviewing someone, their words tend to speak for themselves.

[Bobmuhthol]

Bush is stoopid! Clinton is stoopid! There's only one person who deserves attention: Good ole Benjamin.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby!

[Xcalibur]

and let's not forget our green friends from outerspace

[Bobmuhthol]

Sure..sure..the greenies. That should be a band name. "HELLO AMERICA! WE ARE THE GREENIES! LET'S ROCK!"

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< You're spending too much time reading the same rags Kranar is reading with nothing to back it up with. >>

No offense Parkbandit, but the only one making arguments with absolutely nothing to back it up is you with your stawman arguments.

Let's not be hypocrits now.

Find one quote, or one thing I've ever said in my life, where I supported Clinton. Come on... enough's enough man, quit making things up all the time.

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Kranar]

No offense Kranar.. but find where I said you did support Clinton. I was referring to your conspiracy theory of we went to war with Iraq to get 5000 troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Nothing was made up at all... stop having a guilty conscious :)

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit...how the hell is it a "conspiracy theory" when the advisor primarily responsible for us being in Iraq says it himself, over and over, in several well documented, non biased, public sources? Seriously. Get better informed. Especially if you're serving our country.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Parkbandit...how the hell is it a "conspiracy theory" when the advisor primarily responsible for us being in Iraq says it himself, over and over, in several well documented, non biased, public sources? Seriously. Get better informed. Especially if you're serving our country.

Re-read your 'sources' and get back with us. Also make sure you view the entire conversation and not just take one snippet out of context that will serve your purpose.

Thanks.

[Prestius]

Oh man ... what happened to the Aliens?

Well .. at the risk of putting sources into Warriorbird's mouth ...

The PNAC (The actual group that has advocated US hegemony is the middle east since the early 90's, started by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, William Bennet, and others): http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here's a PBS Frontline story on "The War Behind Closed Doors": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/

Here's another from CBS's Nightline:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html the "tag" for which says: "Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power. "

This probably deserves it's own thread -- but ..

There may be a lot of crazy conspiracy theories about all kinds of stuff in the current administration, but the fact that a big chunk of Bush's advisors have been looking for an excuse to go into Iraq for years is not one of them. It's pretty well documented. I'd say that the actual group, Frontline, and Nightline is pretty good as a source for this.

-P

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Prestius]

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Prestius]

[Parkbandit]

Looking for an excuse and having to invade Iraq to get 5000 troops out of Saudi Arabia are two different things.

Many people in our Government felt that the regime in Iraq posed a clear danger to the US and it's interests. Period.

I happen to agree.

To say we invaded Iraq for Oil.. or to get 5000 troops out of Saudi Arabia and into our already established base in Qatar is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Fact remains that the Iraqi regime was responsible for millions of deaths over the 30 years of their harsh rule. They used WMD on their own people. They support terrorism. They waged wars and invaded their neighbors. They defied the UN Security Council at almost every turn. They were researching, hiding, purchasing, attempting to puchase biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

They needed to be stopped and we stopped them. The US and the world is now a bit safer thanks to our armed forces.

[Warriorbird]

Reread them? Ha ha ha. Seriously, Parkbandit. Open your eyes once and a while. Accepting that you might be wrong when the words come directly from the source's mouth also might help. Then again, as they address in the Matrix, it is really hard to open people's eyes. "The world I knew can't be wrong!' "Conservatives are really unselfish and heroic!" "Never self serving."

Gimme a break, old man. No, no, we wouldn't make a war about pulling troops from a country and profiteering for Cheney's (You keep spelling it wrong) companies. You need to not blindly accept propaganda. See what's really going on. Your own "people" are saying it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Reread them? Ha ha ha. Seriously, Parkbandit. Open your eyes once and a while. Accepting that you might be wrong when the words come directly from the source's mouth also might help. Then again, as they address in the Matrix, it is really hard to open people's eyes. "The world I knew can't be wrong!' "Conservatives are really unselfish and heroic!" "Never self serving."

Gimme a break, old man. No, no, we wouldn't make a war about pulling troops from a country and profiteering for Cheney's (You keep spelling it wrong) companies. You need to not blindly accept propaganda. See what's really going on. Your own "people" are saying it.

The troops were easily moved to Qatar.. the base was already established. And wouldn't it be cheaper for us to simply give Cheney a couple million dollars than to send in our troops?

Come on Warriorbird... one must approach this logically to at least have a chance at having a solid conspiracy theory. You say we've invaded Iraq to move 5000 troops and to get Cheney some extra money for companies he no longer works for.

Come on man... At LEAST use that we needed the oil.. or that Bush hated Saddam so much for picking on his father... or Gen Franks wanted Saddam's extensive porno collection for his own... Those at least are somewhat logical. Your argument holds no merit and is full of holes.

[imported_Kranar]

<< one must approach this logically >>

One must approach this knowledgably Parkbandit. If anyone needs to re-read the interview with Wolfowitz, it's you. Start using things like quotes from the article which you request we re-read instead of blanket statements. Let's see what you KNOW instead of what you assume. Don't put down Warriorbird for actually quoting a government official instead of quoting your assumptions and conjecture.

If it was a missquote, PROVE it.

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

Warriorbird, I thought you might be interested in yet another misquote. This is such a misquoted statement, that it fits right in with our lovely consipracy theory:

"Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."

That misquote comes from our "rag" source, CNN. I actually read it first elsewhere... but knowing how raggy my sources are, I figured I'd quote a source that's always boasting about how it's "America's Most Trusted News."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/bush.iraq.ap/index.html

[Black Jesus]

well you guys clearly know little about astrophysics...

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: Fake CNN.com is amusing...but so sometimes is real CNN. I think in the end everyone needs to have multiple news sources.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< one must approach this logically >>

One must approach this knowledgably Parkbandit. If anyone needs to re-read the interview with Wolfowitz, it's you. Start using things like quotes from the article which you request we re-read instead of blanket statements. Let's see what you KNOW instead of what you assume. Don't put down Warriorbird for actually quoting a government official instead of quoting your assumptions and conjecture.

If it was a missquote, PROVE it.

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Kranar]

Just another point of view:

What Wolfowitz Really Said
From the June 9, 2003 issue: The truth behind the Vanity Fair "scoop."
by William Kristol
06/09/2003, Volume 008, Issue 38


AS THIS MAGAZINE goes to press, a controversy swirls about the head of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He is alleged to have "revealed," in an interview with writer Sam Tanenhaus for the Manhattan celebrity/fashion glossy Vanity Fair, that the Bush administration's asserted casus belli for war against Saddam Hussein--the dictator's weapons-of-mass-destruction program--was little more than a propaganda device, a piece of self-conscious and insincere political manipulation.

Lazy reporters have been following the lead of the press release Vanity Fair publicists circulated about their "scoop." It begins as follows:

Contradicting the Bush administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tells Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction had never been the most compelling justification for invading Iraq.

As it happens, this is a not-quite-accurate description of a paragraph in Tanenhaus's article, which itself bears reprinting for reasons that will become obvious in a moment:

When we spoke in May, as U.S. inspectors were failing to find weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz admitted that from the outset, contrary to so many claims from the White House, Iraq's supposed cache of WMD had never been the most important casus belli. It was simply one of several reasons: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Everyone meaning, presumably, Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Almost unnoticed but huge," he said, is another reason: removing Saddam will allow the U.S. to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia, where their presence has been one of al-Qaeda's biggest grievances.

Let's be clear: Though Paul Wolfowitz has friends and admirers at The Weekly Standard, we would be surprised and more than a little distressed had he actually said what he's supposed to have said in this instance.

For the last 12 years, all specific and sometimes heated policy disagreements notwithstanding, American presidents of both parties, joining a near-unanimous consensus of the so-called "world community," have agreed that the Baath party regime's persistent and never-fully-disclosed WMD program represented a grave threat to international security. Al Gore, for example, in his much-hyped antiwar speech last September, acknowledged that "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." The notion that the Bush administration's prewar reiteration of this view was a cynical ploy is crackpot.

For that matter, the notion that the Bush administration really, really, in its heart of hearts, had other, preferred reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein--particularly, that it did so to justify removing its troops from Saudi Arabia--and that the entire war was therefore a fraud . . . well, this idea, too, is crackpot.

What gives with this Vanity Fair interview, then?

What gives is that Tanenhaus has mischaracterized Wolfowitz's remarks, that Vanity Fair's publicists have mischaracterized Tanenhaus's mischaracterization, and that Bush administration critics are now indulging in an orgy of righteous indignation that is dishonest in triplicate.

Pentagon staffers were wise enough to tape-record the Tanenhaus-Wolfowitz interview. Prior to publication of the Vanity Fair piece, they made that transcript available to its author. And they have since posted the transcript on the Defense Department's website (www.defenselink.mil). Tanenhaus's assertion that Wolfowitz "admitted" that "Iraq's WMD had never been the most important casus belli" turns out to be, not to put too fine a point on it, false. Here's the relevant section of the conversation:

TANENHAUS: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into--

WOLFOWITZ: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.

In short, Wolfowitz made the perfectly sensible observation that more than just WMD was of concern, but that among several serious reasons for war, WMD was the issue about which there was widest domestic (and international) agreement.

As for Tanenhaus's suggestion that Wolfowitz somehow fessed up that the war had a hidden, "unnoticed but huge" agenda--rationalizing a pre-planned troop withdrawal from Saudi Arabia--we refer you, again, to the actual interview. In an earlier section of the conversation, concerning the current, postwar situation in the Middle East, Wolfowitz explained that the United States needs to get post-Saddam Iraq "right," and that we also need "to get some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue," which now looks more promising. Then Wolfowitz said this:

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

Tanenhaus has taken a straightforward and conventional observation about strategic arrangements in a post-Saddam Middle East and juiced it up into a vaguely sinister "admission" about America's motives for going to war in the first place.

The failure so far to discover "stocks" of WMD material in post-Saddam Iraq raises legitimate questions about the quality of U.S. and allied intelligence--though no one doubts that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction, and had an ongoing program to develop more such weapons. Furthermore, people of good will are entitled to disagree, even in retrospect, about the wisdom and probable effects of Saddam's forcible removal. But distorting an on-the-record interview with a Bush administration official in order to create a quasi-conspiratorial narrative of deceit and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government is a disgrace.


--William Kristol

[Warriorbird]

William Kristol...as unbiased...

HA HA HA!

Try again.

[Black Jesus]

William Kristol is a faggot, I actually take the opposite of what he says to be the truth.

[Jack]

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

That's the transcript of the entire interveiw. Read over it, and you can see quite a bit of it is being taken out of context.

Jack

[Warriorbird]

More than one occassion...more than one interview...and the entire philosophy of the group advocating war on Iraq is available. It's sad that you fall for the spin so easily. Whoever said conservatives don't spin just as much as liberals?

You're just falling into what's get tossed out for the public to believe, and ignoring realpolitik. The goal seems to have been both to move those soldiers out, because they were offending, yet obtain some Middle East control. Pretty ridiculous, but you can at least see where they are coming from...rather than weapons of mass destruction that don't exist....yet the second plays real well to the type of dumb yokel that'll hate right along on the Dixie Chicks and plaster their car with flags. One would think y'all'd be above it. There goes my delusion about conservative intellectuals.

[Neildo]

I don't see what the big deal is you're all making. It seems some people think things have to be simplistic. Why did we go to war? It was ONLY because of WMD. Or it was ONLY to get our soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. It was ONLY because Iraq violated many UN codes. It was ONLY for oil. It was ONLY to get rid of the brutal dictatorship. It was ONLY to do this, or ONLY to do that. There can, and IS *many* reasons why we went to war. It's why certain things are chosen over others. You have to weight them all and the one that has the most benefit gets picked to be done first.

This is why certain things also tend to get ignored as well because there's only a few reasons to do whatever it may be that people hope to get done. You have to weight them all. Yes, one other country may be doing bad things too, but when there's lots of people doing bad things, we can't be all over the place. And it's funny when those people that say "if you do this to so-and-so, you should do that to the other countries too" yet they're the ones that complain about us spreading our military resources thin.

This is why I say the general public are morons. While they may have good intentions, they just don't know what they want. They say so many things that contradict what they say, it's ridiculous. It's why if those people were ever in charge, nothing would ever be done. And yes, nobody is perfect. Even our goverment screws up from time to time but it's alright. Why? Because if someone else were in charge, they'd be making the same mistakes, if not more. While they may not screw up what may have been screwed up, they sure as heck would screw up elsewhere which could be worse off. Heck, just imagine if we went to war with Korea instead of Iraq as some wanted..

And damn, how the hell is war getting brought up in here again. It ends up in every folder, lol. Let's talk about UFOs and quit ruffling feathers, Conan (and others too). :P

- N

[Warriorbird]

I definitely think it has more than one cause, Neil. I just don't think WMD is really ANY of those causes. Control of portions of the middle east, profit for American companies, escaping the recession, moving the troops, combatting terrorism, revenge for Bush's daddy, stopping Hussein because he'd no longer be our puppet, a silent aggressive war, and yah, saving lives from the scum that we propped up in Iraq are all causes of the war. Some of those causes are even noble. But what seems to have forced the Bush administration to act is Wolfowitz's group, and their motivations are anything but noble. Some are, while non noble, thing that I agree with...but...getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia, only to promptly move them to take over Iraq...or thinking that this will somehow remove terrorism...both those are foolish...and the WMD were just a way to get world backing and hook the dim and pretty clueless American public on an offensive war rather than a defensive one.

Back to UFO's...I think they're mainly the college pranksters of the Alien world, or top secret American military projects. I have a theory combined out of Douglas Adams and the X-Files. :chuckles:

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Sure..sure..the greenies. That should be a band name. "HELLO AMERICA! WE ARE THE GREENIES! LET'S ROCK!"

HAHA damn Bob