Buzz Aldrin told journalist he saw a UFO near

[Wookietim]

Yes, it is my personal belief that life exists elsewhere in the Universe, however, that does by no means render it likely that said ET life is here. What if Einstein was correct and interstellar travel is so impractical that it is essentially impossible?

Cheers,

Badeskov

This is off topic and all... But the stars will never be reached by man. We will probably find ways to exploit our own solar system, but humans will never set foot on a extrasolar planet... Our descendants will.

The things that supplant us as the standard bearers for the human race will go out into the galaxy... They will have to be able to survive for thousands or millions of years with almost no nourishment... They will have to be capable of dealing with interstellar cold and radiation... they will have to be able to reproduce themselves even if only one of them is around... and they will have to be able to remember their function for all that time... In short : Robots and AI will be the closest the Human Race will ever get to setting foot on another solar system.

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction when it comes to our theories about UFO's?

[MID]

With respect sir, Its everything to do with the subject matter of your discussion. You accept that life exists on other worlds, you have just said so. Therefore any anomaly observed by our brave astronauts cannot, repeat cannot, be considered "not" to be of alien origin. It is an obvious and distinct possibility. It is exactly that.

You asked the following...something you've asked repeatedly to anyone who challenges your statements:

Do you not believe that intelligent alien life exists somewhere in the universe. Yes or No?

I said yes, as everyone of intelligence, I think, very likely would.

I also stated that the question is irrelevant to your argument. It has nothing to do with mine. What I was addressing was this statement from you:

wot big eyes Ive got, on 07 January 2010 - 06:35 PM, said:

Actually gentleman - its also highly probable that the AS11 crew saw alien technology.

That is a long stretch, and has little to do with the existence of intelligent alien life. Most all of us think, based upon an understanding of the actual scale of the universe as we know it, that it's got to be very probable that alien life in all forms exists.

However, understanding that universal scale also makes it highly improbable that the AS-11 UFO sighting was an alien life form or artifact of alien life. The odds of any alien life actually finding this tiny world, buried along an obscure spiral arm in an equally obscure pinpoint (relative to the universe) called the Milky Way is exceedingly slim. Possible, sure, but not likely. We are an invisible, sub-microscopic spec in the universe. We've never detected the slightest signal of alien intelligence in all the years of looking for one (which isn't surprising to me at all...whether one thinks there's life out there or not).

Yet, suddenly, we hear that the Apollo 11 sighting on 18 July 1969 somehow is highly likely to be an alien piece of gear, a statement which defies logic, and reasonable probability, and discounts the fact that we did not, nor do we have any idea if there is any alien life in the universe, and further, discounts the highly probable prosaic explanation for the sighting that was determined 4 decades ago.

Please enlighten my ignorance if this is incorrect. Alien presence cannot be ruled out, simply because it is said or considered to be unlikely, where there is a consensus on such life existing, (this is spin).

I think there is a consensus among reasonable people that there simply must be alien life out there. But that has nothing to do with declaring that the AS-11 UFO was alien technology..to a high probability, especially when the prosaic explanation has been accepted completely by those who were involved with it 40 years ago.

To help me understand your rationale better, can you give me an idea of your odds (or probability), that a known anomaly in our solar system detected by NASA, is or is not of alien origin. (if it helps i can suggest examples, but i was thinking of something like the tower on Phobos).

My rational is based upon logic and an understanding, and adherence to the methodology of science.

Numerical qualification of probability?

No, I'm sure I couldn't. Too many assumptions need to be made to come up with a reasonable probability, and each case of what appears anomalous is different, with different variables.

As to the Phobos Anomaly ("Tower" is a term used to intensify the mystery of the thing that is unwarranted), odds are that the prosaic explanation is correct, that being that it is a piece of impact ejecta embedded in the surface of the tiny, cataclysmically cratered moon of Mars.

Odds of it being some alien artifact are likely very, very low. It makes no sense to have placed some object on a tiny moon, maybe 15 miles across, with a variable surface gravity between maybe 2/10000 and 8/10000g (If you were able to stand on its surface, and drop a ball from 4 feet up, on Phobos it would take that ball approximately 22 seconds to descend to the surface on average), a basically impossible place to function on...

You'd probably be inclined to place something on a functional surface, on a larger place, like on Mars itself...

Monoliths are common, on Earth, and on celestial bodies. There are many prosaic explanations that make a whole lot more sense than the assumption that they are alien artifact.

Apollo 11's UFO was determined to very likely be one of the SLA panels which housed their lunar module on the Saturn V. The four panels were ejected and were on their own outbound trajectories along with the AS-11 spacecraft stack. Sunlight reflecting off of the rather large and reflective panel, and its position at that time, brought its reflections into their line of sight, and they observed a flashing light in the distance. They saw it for about 45 minutes or so that night, and they weren't able to clearly image it with their optics (rather naturally as well I should think). Analysis showed a high probability that one of the 4 SLA panels would be in that vicinity at that time (one couldn't exactly determnine their positions because they weren't trackable, as they had no transponders installed in them, but an estimate of the outward velocity at jettison, and their angle of departure were used to get a ball-park estimate).

The issue was merely of some passing interest to the crew. After they observed it on and off for the best part of an hour, it was no olonger visible to them, and they forgot about it, because they were rather heavily invested in the work at hand for them over the next couple days...

Frankly, the last thing I'd consider about anything seen in space exploration is an alien artifact.

[MID]

But because it ain't proven doesn't mean logically that it doesn't exist. More so when we have a consensus that it does probably.

The consensus that alien life probably exists has nothing to do with stating that UFOs are alien craft...to a high probability.

I think I've explained how this works by now.

This is why it is perfectly acceptable to speculate that anomalies discovered beyond the environs of earth (where man has hardly gone at all), could have been manufactured by non-human means.

It's perfectly acceptible to speculate, yes.

It's not perfectly acceptible to declare a high probability. We know nothing of aliens, absolutely nothing, including whether they actually exist or not. Speculation is fine. This board is loaded with it. Declarations of high probability are illogical, and defy reason. There is no basis for it.

What's wrong with thinking a pyramid shaped anomaly on Mars could have been built by Aliens, this is good speculation as there is a real, chance it has.

You really have no grasp of the difference between speculation and probability.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that a pyrimid shap on the surface of Mars is of alien origin.

There is a problem with stating that there is a real good chance of this being a fact.

There is no basis for such a declaration.

Or what's wrong with thinking that a UFO seen over a moon crater, is an alien craft.

Same thing: nothing's wrong with thinking that.

There is a real chance it is. Whether you people think it is probable, likely or not is just banter. There is a real possibility that it is alien.

And again, same answer.

There is absolutely no basis for this extension scientifically. None.

If you had some scientific substantiation for the existence of alien life, you could postulate, and then, you'd at least have some actual chance included in your speculation.

As it is, you have none.

Speculate all you like. That's fine.

Quit with the real chance and high probability. Those things do not exist yet in the matter of manifestations of alien life.

[badeskov]

This is off topic and all... But the stars will never be reached by man. We will probably find ways to exploit our own solar system, but humans will never set foot on a extrasolar planet... Our descendants will.

I agree. No man, woman or child living now will set foot on extra-solar objects. Our descendants? There I still have doubts. Obviously we don't know, but I have a nagging suspicion that Einstein was painfully correct when he formulated his theories. Sadly.

The things that supplant us as the standard bearers for the human race will go out into the galaxy... They will have to be able to survive for thousands or millions of years with almost no nourishment... They will have to be capable of dealing with interstellar cold and radiation... they will have to be able to reproduce themselves even if only one of them is around... and they will have to be able to remember their function for all that time... In short : Robots and AI will be the closest the Human Race will ever get to setting foot on another solar system.

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction when it comes to our theories about UFO's?

Again, I completely agree. I have some issues with the idea of manned (as in ET pilots) missions exploring the Earth doing all this kind of stuff we hear of. Frankly, I see the first close encounter with higher a order intelligence ET race to be with their technology and not ET themselves. Sort of like a remote sensing probe entering orbit and then just orbiting and collecting data, something we would notice. Or maybe even a mission like the Cassini-Huygens where a larger probe enters orbit and then drops a smaller probe into the atmosphere to take picture and sample atmosphere, measure radioactivity and a whole host of other data.

I have a really hard time with the ET leisure craft manned by ET crashing here and there, abducting people, chopping up cows and generally messing with nuclear warheads, aircrafts and cars.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[RachWarwick]

There's every chance aliens exist, and there's every chance they are here now, and there's every chance they have built every anomalous structure detected in the solar system.

Things that look like buildings on mars, might well be buildings. No other deceptive or long winded pompous-assed pseudo-scientific explanation needed, thanks.

Why doesn't a proper space agency like the ESA grow some cojones and say publically...

"Dr. Neukum has found something that looks like a giant statue of the head of an elf-like alien in his image Coloredmap.jpg, but please make up your own minds".

[badeskov]

...

Why doesn't a proper space agency like the ESA grow some cojones and say publically...

"Dr. Neukum has found something that looks like a giant statue of the head of an elf-like alien in his image Coloredmap.jpg, but please make up your own minds".

Why should they?.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited January 9, 2010 by badeskov

[RachWarwick]

Why should they?.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Well true, some people might say that academic's are spineless people that are easily manipulated by government. Perhaps they enjoy the eunuch life. Growing cojones may not have any benefit as the closest they get to needing courage is playing WoW every night in cyberspace...some might say

Bottoms up

Rach

[badeskov]

Well true, some people might say that academic's are spineless people that are easily manipulated by government. Perhaps they enjoy the eunuch life. Growing cojones may not have any benefit as the closest they get to needing courage is playing WoW every night in cyberspace...some might say

It has nothing to do with being spineless, actually, rather the opposite. Most prominent scientists have brass cojones and will certainly not let any Government dictate anything that would question the integrity of their research. Additionally, it is most certainly not the job of scientists to run around guessing without data to back them up, nor is it their job to ask others to run around guessing. People will do that anyways (examples are more than plentyful, sadly).

It is the job of scientist to convey the data they know, not engage in wild speculation. And, frankly, we know what happens when scientists make unfounded comments like that, even as a joke. People run with it and make all kinds of wild scenarios that are extremely hard to get rid of again.

Bottoms up

Rach

Cheers in a nice, dark ale

Badeskov

[RachWarwick]

It has nothing to do with being spineless, actually, rather the opposite. Most prominent scientists have brass cojones and will certainly not let any Government dictate anything that would question the integrity of their research. Additionally, it is most certainly not the job of scientists to run around guessing without data to back them up, nor is it their job to ask others to run around guessing. People will do that anyways (examples are more than plentyful, sadly).

It is the job of scientist to convey the data they know, not engage in wild speculation. And, frankly, we know what happens when scientists make unfounded comments like that, even as a joke. People run with it and make all kinds of wild scenarios that are extremely hard to get rid of again.

Cheers in a nice, dark ale

Badeskov

It will be dark and runny, but it wont be ale.

Cheers

Rach

[badeskov]

It will be dark and runny, but it wont be ale.

Cheers

Rach

So I take it you disagree with my assessment of what scientists should and should not do. Is that correct? If so, maybe you could elaborate a bit on that?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[MID]

There's every chance aliens exist, and there's every chance they are here now, and there's every chance they have built every anomalous structure detected in the solar system.

...I am supposing that some words simply fall on deaf ears here...

Things that look like buildings on mars, might well be buildings. No other deceptive or long winded pompous-assed pseudo-scientific explanation needed, thanks.

And the deception involved in a proper scientific explanation, clearly outlining the most likely scenario lies where?

I can answer that...

The "deception" lies in the mind of the one who can't understand the logic and process involved in the explanation. It's unfortunately rather typical these days...

Why doesn't a proper space agency like the ESA grow some cojones and say publically...

"Dr. Neukum has found something that looks like a giant statue of the head of an elf-like alien in his image Coloredmap.jpg, but please make up your own minds".

Why would they say something so provocative and something so baseless?

[MID]

Well true, some people might say that academic's are spineless people that are easily manipulated by government. Perhaps they enjoy the eunuch life. Growing cojones may not have any benefit as the closest they get to needing courage is playing WoW every night in cyberspace...some might say

Bottoms up

Rach

Some might say...sure. In fact, many these days do.

But they simply don't understand that the vast majority of scientists are neither employed by the government, nor are they controlled by government in the slightest.

Actual scientific discovery is distributed rapidly, and without the government's knowledge (nor, in large part, the general public's). There is no possibility of controlling this.

"Spineless" is a new and unique appellation, which is used by those who simply cannot grasp that true science isn't going to publish nonsense and speculations regarding the dearest illusions and wishes of some folks. They publish findings, pure and simple, and don't embellish them by saying things about aliens and artifacts and that sort of stuff...because there's no justification whatsoever to do so.

[the_UNKNOWN_DEAD]

Things that look like buildings on mars, might well be buildings. No other deceptive or long winded pompous-assed pseudo-scientific explanation needed, thanks.

So we must all fall into step with Hoagland style nonsense about artificiality, because actual evidence indicating lack of artificiality will be ignored?

...and just who are the "sheeple"??

[+HerNibs]

So we must all fall into step with Hoagland style nonsense about artificiality, because actual evidence indicating lack of artificiality will be ignored?

...and just who are the "sheeple"??

Nibs