So you think we are alone in this infinite universe?

@hammersklavier,

May, therefore should: I guess it's not a causality fallacy because you're not implying anything 100%, but what is average implying?

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

That our cosmological position in the stellar neighborhood is normative. We orbit an absolutely normal star in an absolutely normal part of an absolutely normal galaxy in an absolutely normal part of a universe. Substellarly, the planet we live on (and perhaps the relative positions of other planets in the system) could also be normative (pending hard science).

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Note this argument does not imply intelligent life exists elsewhere: I think we can all agree intelligence is almost certainly a most unusual evolutionary adaptation.

How is this supposed to shut me me up? How can you measure the rarity of "intelligent" life occuring througout the universe, by looking at what other "intelligent" life has occured on our planet? Did it not cross your mind that we may be the first species to reap the reward of "intelligence" through the process of evolution. If you look at the time line, we havn't been "intelligent" for very long, and I suspect that apes may be the next to become "intelligent", they certiantly have better short term memories and reflexes than we do. But back to what you seem to be avoiding, the NASA footage, please tell me how raw NASA footage, admittidly filmed by NASA, including the voices of the astronauts (who do remark on the objects), is anything but solid, examinable evidence, and how would would psychology come into play?

2 Replies

@GHOST phil,

Ghost, you are being naive, it's not real evidence. It's as simple as that. Obviously if somebody else tells you how this can be it doesn't sink in. So just for yourself, think about all the possible flaws in this piece of evidence.

People admit things, but it doesn't make it the truth; and people do lie. Motive? Money... attention, who knows.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Oh, so absolutely everyone is lying, it's all just one BIG ball of lies and deception, for f**ck sakes, if you cannot trust NASA and their footage, what can you trust, who can you trust, and if they are being deceptive, than what are they trying to hide by making us think aliens are here and then why would NASA have a stupid little page where they try and debunk UFO's with the most rediculous evidence they have....what is going on here? I guarantee you, NASA will tell you, that is their footage. Either way, they are lying about something, are they not? How is 71% of America and all the highly respectible people that believe in UFO's and Aliens, in need of money or attention, or who knows? Give me a break....who is really being naive here? Have you got nothing better than: "they were lying or tripping out, which makes me feel better because I'm not misinformed about anything"

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

WHAT NASA FOOTAGE?

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

NASA has quiet a lot of "questionable footage. If people could just wait a few days, I will be back on my comp and able to examine lots of different videos, and argue the existance of Aliens.

GHOST wrote:

Aedes said:

Well I will be purchasing a DVD called "Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs" available at Amazon.com: Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs: David Sereda, Dan Aykroyd: Movies & TV Why don't you read the customer reviews, they make some really good points? Anyway, I'm 100% certian that if you show the footage to NASA and ask them if they filmed it, they would answer you: "YES". It contains raw footage, sound and all, and when these objects appear the astronauts even comment on the objects!

This will be the main focus.

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

GHOST wrote:

How is this supposed to shut me me up? How can you measure the rarity of "intelligent" life occuring througout the universe, by looking at what other "intelligent" life has occured on our planet? Did it not cross your mind that we may be the first species to reap the reward of "intelligence" through the process of evolution. If you look at the time line, we havn't been "intelligent" for very long, and I suspect that apes may be the next to become "intelligent", they certiantly have better short term memories and reflexes than we do. But back to what you seem to be avoiding, the NASA footage, please tell me how raw NASA footage, admittidly filmed by NASA, including the voices of the astronauts (who do remark on the objects), is anything but solid, examinable evidence, and how would would psychology come into play?

Easy: the argument I was extending was simply a logical supposition to validate the idea of extraterrestrial life. It cannot be used to validate extraterrestrial intelligence, and looking through your previous posts, I am concerned you would bend it that way.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

The point is, considering the size of the universe, and the amount of planets that would be able to sustain life, there is most likely lots of life throughout out universe, and chances are, we are not the only "intelligent" life in the universe, far from it. No, I'm not going to try and calculate the chances of life actually reaching and visiting Earth, there are to many factors to account for.

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

For some reason I think the only way that intelligent life could visit Earth from other nooks and crannies of the universe would be through the use of the infinite improbability drive.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

So why have you excluded parallel universe , or worm holes.

1 Reply

@xris,

OK people, here we go, NASA footage. I have watched "Evidence: The Case for NASA UFO's" and the arguments, analysis, and scientific methods used to eliminate the possibilities of comets, space dust or camera faults are empirical and fully conclusive. I have found on youtube, two of the most controversial pieces of NASA footage ever captured. The youtube scenes are exactly the same in every way, as the ones on the the film "Evidence: The Case for NASA UFO's" and all other footage I have seen of the exact same scenes, and I have watched these scenes a lot of times, from a lot of different sources (which I encourage), and have shown a lot of people. The question here should not be "is this footage real", I assure you, it is, and NASA will assure you, if you ask someone working there, and the people who watched it live on national television will also tell you it is genuine. The question here should be, "what are these unidentifyable objects", and this has been the question throughout the scientific community since the footage was shown. I will not argue anything yet, I will let some people watch them first, then we can start the debate!:letme-at-em: One thing to remember, is that these crafts are usually only visible within the lower light spectrum (moving towards the higher frequencies), and these NASA cameras are capable of viewing things in these lower spectrums. Also, I highly recommend the skeptics watch "Evidence: The Case for NASA UFO's", you will have an extremely hard time disproving the evidence presented.

The NASA footage:
YouTube - UFO NASA's unexplained tether overload incident
YouTube - STS-80 UFO - Best high quality version yet

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

Dont do a lot for me im afraid and i was hoping it would. The first clip, nasa say its ice crystal glowing in the suns rays , so are you saying they are wrong..Second clip you have no explaination from nasa but a guy who has made his mind up they are aliens showing of.What does nasa say about this clip?

1 Reply

@xris,

Ice crystals? How does that work exactly? How about when the camera zooms in, and we can clearly see several of these crafts pass behind the tether? Estimates say they are 2-3 miles in diameter....I'm not sure what ice crystals look like, but if they do get that big, why do they all look like they are made of energy, why do they pulsate, why do they all look the same, a circle with a black center and a small notch cut out of the side? That's quiet peculiar...and I'm not sure what crap NASA has come up with for the second video, but why do they not get pulled into the Earths gravitational field, and why do they seem to be doing something intelligent? Notice the one shoot past, close to camera as it moves towards Earth, looks quiet similar to the ones from the first piece of footage doesn't it? They all move into a formation above the Earth and increase their luminosity dramatically...also quite peculiar. I didn't really chose that video because it had that guy talking about it, in fact, I didn't really listen to what he was saying, I was only interested in finding that sequence. I am currently looking for two other controversial pieces of footage, in the first, an object is seen streaking across the surface of the Earth and disappearing as it reaches the horizon, and keeps going around the other side of the Earth, estimates place it at about half a mile wide. In the second scene, objects are seen leaving the Earths atmosphere, while at the same time, one object makes an impossible turn, in which the G forces would cause an instant explosion of space crystals or comets, they are in perfect focus and appear to leave trails behind them, which no normal piece of space dust will do, it is clear these objects are at a great distance from the camera, they are not pieces of space dust floating past the camera, which is about the only logical answer, other than UFO's.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

GHOST wrote:

Ice crystals? How does that work exactly? How about when the camera zooms in, and we can clearly see several of these crafts pass behind the tether? Estimates say they are 2-3 miles in diameter....I'm not sure what ice crystals look like, but if they do get that big, why do they all look like they are made of energy, why do they pulsate, why do they all look the same, a circle with a black center and a small notch cut out of the side? That's quiet peculiar...and I'm not sure what crap NASA has come up with for the second video, but why do they not get pulled into the Earths gravitational field, and why do they seem to be doing something intelligent? They all move into a formation above the Earth and increase their luminosity dramatically...also quite peculiar. I didn't really chose that video because it had that guy talking about it, in fact, I didn't really listen to what he was saying, I was only interested in finding that sequence. I am currently looking for two other controversial pieces of footage, in the first, an object is seen streaking across the surface of the Earth and disappearing as it reaches the horizon, and keeps going around the other side of the Earth, estimates place it at about half a mile wide. In the second scene, objects are seen leaving the Earths atmosphere, while at the same time, one object makes an impossible turn, in which the G forces would cause an instant explosion of space crystals or comets, they are in perfect focus and appear to leave trails behind them, which no normal piece of space dust will do, it is clear these objects are at a great distance from the camera, they are not pieces of space dust floating past the camera, which is about the only logical answer, other than UFO's.

Look im only being honest here..I dont know how far away those ice crystals are they dont seem to have any purpose in their movements and are you saying all of them are alien craft there are hundreds of them..The second one i dont know but what does nasa say we must have their explaination before we can judge surely..If it was so obviously alien would it not be headline news..dont you think nasa if they where hidding something they would not of allowed this footage??TOO MANY IFS..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Look im only being honest here..I dont know how far away those ice crystals are they dont seem to have any purpose in their movements and are you saying all of them are alien craft there are hundreds of them..The second one i dont know but what does nasa say we must have their explaination before we can judge surely..If it was so obviously alien would it not be headline news..dont you think nasa if they where hidding something they would not of allowed this footage??TOO MANY IFS..

Well, some obviously pass behind the tether, therefor, we can use the tether as a measuring device, and assuming they are right behind the tether, they are between 2-3 miles wide, the largest UFO's captured on NASA footage....and there are heaps, because they were swarming the tether, investigating it, NASA also reported that some electronic settings had changed, settings only adjustable by remote control, but lets not get into this. Comets and space crystals shouldn't even be visible in space until they start burning up in our atmosphere, and start letting off light, I assume this is why they are claiming they were ice crystals glowing in sun, one could also say, that's an awful lot of ice crystals floating around, and there are not hundreds, a lot of what you see are stars, you know, the ones that don't move relative to each other...The last point I want to make, is ice crystals shouldn't even even exist in space, the extreme radiation from the sun should instantly cause the ice to melt, and vaporize in a furry of nuclear reactions and transmutations...also, do not trust NASA, what ever you do, if the existence of UFO's, well Alien space crafts, was considered a risk to national security, they would take all measures to avoid letting the public know.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

Oh, and if you don't know this, this footage is from a while ago when they started doing live feeds using the cameras that could see into the lower light spectrum, which these crafts are only visible in, well most of the time, they are highly quantized energy crafts, making them capable of faster than light space travel (if you want a better description of the physics, I suggest you watch this, might take a while to get to it). Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 2 Shortly after, NASA stopped doing live feeds...also peculiar.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

Im trying hard to concentrate on this but the images show a very large amount of these so called ufos but they are smaller haphazard in their movements and not oscillating the same as the ones that are bigger and less mobile.What are they? are you telling me these are all ufos the commentator does not even mention them..The tether is not solid as he explains it is a electro static field that is not solid so how can these so called solid objects be seen passing behind something that is not soild.
Ive tried to work out what his on about with his cosmic clock..how does he work out that when you look at a galaxy the light is spiralling down to its centre..it baffles me..Maybe you can help..Ill watch the rest later when you have helped me with these questions..

1 Reply

@xris,

I've been thinking about why I say the search for life in general and the search for intelligent life are somewhat different. Remember, that one of the arguments I advance in support of the idea for life in general in the universe involves the Universe's infinite multitude of stars and our normative position within, that is, orbiting a perfectly normal star in a perfectly normal part of a perfectly normal galaxy.

However, any argument that derives from infinities must necessarily provide for pretty much any conclusion, especially the conclusion that intelligent extraterrestrial life is prevalent. While some would characterize this as a fatal weakness of my argument, I believe there are several mitigating factors at work that fatally weaken this counterargument.

1. The exponential rarity of intelligent life on Earth seems to imply its exponential rarity elsewhere. There is only one confirmed truly intelligent species here, to wit, us, out of the many billions of species that have existed beforehand. That is to say that intelligent life is much less likely to evolve than just life in general.

2. The part of the Universe we can see is not infinite. It is, instead, a finite amount of space, to wit, Sol's past light cone, or the light from elsewhere in the Universe that eventually radiates to Sol. Since I advance my argument only from within this context, especially the derivations about our cosmological normality, my own argument itself is proved invalid unless it disallows the infinity of totality, that is, it focuses instead on the finite "infinity" present in our past light cone.

3. My argument says that our existence is predicated on our cosmological normalcy. In other words, there are other normal stars out there, and among them some likely have planets supporting life. Rationality, as I have pointed out, is a cosmological abnormality.

4. The only way we can prove intelligent life exists is by contacting it. Well, so what? you might be asking, but here on Earth a being can only be proved intelligent by likewise intelligent contact. This implies that, per my argument, we can come to broad conclusions about life in general, but by and large only prokaryotic or simple eukaryotic forms; we cannot imply intelligence without intelligent contact.

5. If there is other intelligent life out there, it is most likely outside our light cone and therefore uncontactable and therefore my argument cannot say whether or not they exist.

6. Therefore, insofar as we can currently ascertain, it seems highly unlikely there is other intelligent life out there.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

If you saw the coast of the new world would you turn back and say its my imagination ? I can give you a dozen theories that could give credence to other intelligent life being possible within two feet of you computer, are you saying alien life is not possible because of your imagination or can you prove its not possible?.Nothing is written, nothing is as it seems..

1 Reply

So you think we are alone in this infinite universe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know