SETI Institute chief offers his views on UFOs and alien visitors

[MrsGently]

On 4/23/2024 at 12:58 PM, UM-Bot said:

SETI's Bill Diamond is not particularly convinced that we have ever been visited by members of an alien civilization.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/376465/seti-institute-chief-offers-his-views-on-ufos-and-alien-visitors

oh how cool:

Quote

...

"We don't have any evidence of any credible source that would indicate the presence of alien technology in our skies," he told Space.com. "And we never have."

"The idea that the government is keeping something like this secret is just totally absurd."

"There's no motivation to do so."

...

"If you sent that spacecraft to our closest neighbor star, Alpha Centauri, it would take 80,000 years to get there," he said.

...

"Nobody really wants to think that this Earth is the only place in the vastness of space where life has emerged. Even that idea is also kind of absurd."

Exactly my thoughts too.

[Hazzard]

24 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

oh how cool:

Exactly my thoughts too.

"Why do people have these beliefs? It is because they want to believe," Diamond added.

[Dejarma]

On 4/24/2024 at 11:04 PM, Hazzard said:

Lies and hoaxes are also very high up on the list.

i say the highest 

[esoteric_toad]

Disregard. Not worth the effort.

Edited April 26 by esoteric_toad

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

15 hours ago, Hazzard said:

The Battle of LA, again... really!? 😄

That one was put to bed a long time ago... and then again just a couple of months ago.

At a closer look "the battle" falls apart like all these tall tales of AliEnZ on Earth.. like Roswell and Rendlesham. 

Its just one of those urban legends that UFOlogy cant let go of.

 

 

LoL you crack me up, Hazzard - "urban legend". And we can't let go of it because it is real and has never been "debunked".

The information pertaining to the firepower shot up at the object was supplied by the US Army. 
Also, the Military Historical Society claims that the object the military fired at was a weather balloon. 

[Dejarma]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LoL you crack me up, Hazzard - "urban legend". And we can't let go of it because it is real and has never been "debunked".

you crack me up= what part of the 'story' is real??

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

11 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you crack me up= what part of the 'story' is real??

Now, come on, Dejarma. I'm not going thru this another time.

The last time I brought it up was to show that a researcher using new forensic techniques proved that there was "something" under the cloud of smoke.
It all ended when that miracle worker, ChrlZs said that the scientist that did the research was something tantamount to deplorable. That ended it!!!

Whooping and hollering, hi fives, and LIKE¹⁰ - gag a maggot. It won't happen again

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, come on, Dejarma. I'm not going thru this another time.

The last time I brought it up was to show that a researcher using new forensic techniques proved that there was "something" under the cloud of smoke.
It all ended when that miracle worker, ChrlZs said that the scientist that did the research was something tantamount to deplorable. That ended it!!!

Whooping and hollering, hi fives, and LIKE¹⁰ - gag a maggot. It won't happen again

i don't fekin care!!! zzzzzzzzzz

[Hazzard]

10 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, come on, Dejarma. I'm not going thru this another time.

The last time I brought it up was to show that a researcher using new forensic techniques proved that there was "something" under the cloud of smoke.
It all ended when that miracle worker, ChrlZs said that the scientist that did the research was something tantamount to deplorable. That ended it!!!

Whooping and hollering, hi fives, and LIKE¹⁰ - gag a maggot. It won't happen again

@ChrLzs   (If you care to comment?)

[ChrLzs]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, come on, Dejarma. I'm not going thru this another time.

Why not?  Is it because you are nervous about your lack of knowledge?  Do you not understand the topic well enough?  Or are you perhaps easily convinced by misinformation?  Let's find out shall we..??  Read on, and it's now time for you to walk the walk.

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The last time I brought it up was to show that a researcher using new forensic techniques proved that there was "something" under the cloud of smoke.

'new forensic techniques'?  Sounds like it's right up my street..  Are you sure you want to go down this path?  Just to give you a hint on where this will go... What does 'forensic' imply?  Glad you asked.  It means that the processes and techniques used are valid, verifiable, and make scientific sense.

Here's a quick bit of imaging 101 - see if you can keep up...  Film images must be digitally scanned (so they can be 'processed'), preferably at the highest available resolution, and using the highest available level of greyscale (or color) bit depth.  The most interesting part of that is that you end up with something that might be a quite large file, but its content is pretty simple and easily analysed.  So just by looking at the file, I can tell you what exact resolution it has, and also what the color depth is.  More about that later..    Nothing can be truly 'hidden', in that respect - subtle details are either in the dataset or not and the processes to 'enhance' / reveal subtle details are well-understood and EXPLAINABLE and REPEATABLE.  But there's more - NEITHER the original film OR the best scan of that film you can make has anything that is beyond a 2D 'flat' image.  If you know what you are doing (that's not you, Earl), then you'd know that details in the film or in the scanned file can't be hidden.  If there are any hard to see details, the 'researcher' can simply point them out using tools related to contrast or 'gamma'.  They can tell us exactly what they did and what tools they used, so ANYONE can follow the steps and VERIFY what was 'under'.  BTW, no forensic researcher would use words like under or over - there are NO layers.  Original images are 2D, so there's no over / under...   And ANY decent image editor will have all the tools you need to reveal subtle contrast issues, or details that aren't easy to see in very bright or dark regions of the image.

What's more, the processes that you CAN and CANNOT use are all very well known, and they are pretty easy to explain.  Note that most image adjustments made in an image editor will either add or destroy detail - obviously not a good thing.  So if you used the wrong technique/s .. you completely wrecked the data and destroyed any 'forensic' value it might have had before you ruined it... 

Now maybe you're just 'splaining it wrong, but when you say "something" was "under" the cloud of smoke, then any real digital image analyst will laugh at your silliness.  They'll ask you to demonstrate the technique used so we or anybody can run the numbers to see any subtle details.

In other words, if you have been misled by a pretender rather than someone with actual forensic image skills... well, that will be embarrassing.  You could maybe make something useful from it by learning from your errors, but I doubt it.  Now, I'll be delighted to elaborate, but before doing so.....

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It all ended when that miracle worker, ChrlZs said that the scientist that did the research was something tantamount to deplorable. That ended it!!!

Thanks so much for the compliment, but I don't do 'miracles'.  Having said that, I'm really, really good at digital image analysis.  But you've made specific claims there about what I said, so you will now link to the thread and postings involved.  I don't wish to start working on this, only to find you do a skyeagle and say "that wasn't it" and change the subject....  Oh, and believe me, I'll report you if you refuse.  I've had enough of this sort of bull.  QUOTE and CITE your claims.

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Whooping and hollering, hi fives, and LIKE¹⁰ - gag a maggot. It won't happen again

Mmm.  Very mature.  Now, provide the link so I can get started.  BTW, even if you don't provide the link/s, I have bookmarks that I suspect refer exactly to what you are claiming, so I'll do it anyway, and really rub in your refusal.  

Anyway, good luck.  😎

Edited April 27 by ChrLzs
coz bad spelin

[ChrLzs]

On 4/23/2024 at 11:39 PM, Cho Jinn said:

Louvre-worthy, self-contradictory pabulum. Intellectual Juul vaping.  Just say no.

Don't wear out your Thesaurus.

[ChrLzs]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:13 PM, Ell said:

I do not care whether anyone values my testimony. I know what I saw.

Never had a lucid/vivid dream?  Or a hallucination?  And your memories are 100% reliable, and you've never had a memory change from a dream into a real event?

For me, the answers are:

Yes, and one was unbelievably real, I still wonder if I'm dreaming now and it was then I was awake..

Yes.  From tiredness, not drugs.  The things I saw were 100% real to my mind.

No, I've got a few 'memories' that I know are false.

[ChrLzs]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:56 PM, Unusual Tournament said:

I think we do.  @skyeagle409 has a excellent catalog of evidence 

Wow.  Which case, in your opinion, is the best evidenced one?

[+joc]

7 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Wow.  Which case, in your opinion, is the best evidenced one?

Yep.  Funny that you are STILL having to ask for The Best Evidence...i.e.  the highest quality evidence.  For many, it is only about the Quantity of Evidence.  It's the same old BS vs. Brilliance game.  Bog them down with similar details to the point of nausea.  It's a Rope a Dope...get the fact seekers worn out trying to debunk the never ending flood of BS/WOO  and  they won't have the time or energy to look for the Quality of Evidence. 

The truth shuts down bs every single time!  You have check mated all of them.  If they do present their Best Evidence...they know you will squash it like a bug...and, if their Best Evidence is squashed, then it is game over.  They won't play that game so all we can expect is just more and more and more of the same old bs.  A never ending river of BS.  

 

[+joc]

20 hours ago, MrsGently said:

and? What are you trying to say with that? Are you the thought police who we all have to ask for permission before we enjoy a good story or some beliefs that make life more exciting?

You have some sort of a paranoia complex don't you?  

Algebraic Theorem...   If A = B and B = C then A = C.

[ChrLzs]

6 minutes ago, joc said:

Yep.  Funny that you are STILL having to ask for The Best Evidence...i.e.  the highest quality evidence.  For many, it is only about the Quantity of Evidence.  It's the same old BS vs. Brilliance game.  Bog them down with similar details to the point of nausea.  It's a Rope a Dope...get the fact seekers worn out trying to debunk the never ending flood of BS/WOO  and  they won't have the time or energy to look for the Quality of Evidence. 

The truth shuts down bs every single time!  You have check mated all of them.  If they do present their Best Evidence...they know you will squash it like a bug...and, if their Best Evidence is squashed, then it is game over.  They won't play that game so all we can expect is just more and more and more of the same old bs.  A never ending river of BS.  

 

I like to be optimistic - I reckon, even though there's been a bit of an upsurge lately, that overall the trend of UFO=Alienz claims are reducing.  And I think quite apart from the failure of TB's to bring ANY evidence to the table, it must surely be becoming painfully evident that sky surveillance is increasing to unheard of levels (quantity and quality).  Even my neighbours dog has a GoPro on when he's out roaming the neighbourhood.  And as the coverage and quality gets better each day, it seems we get less and less reports.  And that's because, if you're not close enough to resolve the distant blob, there are plenty of other folks nearer, and they can see what the 'things' are.

[ChrLzs]

On 4/26/2024 at 9:27 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, then, you just haven't seen this one:

While we wait for EoT to return triumphantly and link me to the posts of mine he is whining about...

Here's a quick Pop-Quiz on the image above.  Does something look odd to you?  There's several issues, but one that sticks out like the proverbial dog's gonads....  I can help a little - here's a couple of crops from a MUCH higher resolution image.  One showing the rather bright oofos, and the other showing the cars:



Hint - is there something missing from those cars ...??    Think about it....

[+joc]

14 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

It is so cute that you think you sound super smart with your 6th grade math... ha

Translation:  you don't have a clue what I meant by my post.  So, I will explain it to you:

You commented on a quote from the Seti chief Bill Diamond who said, 

Quote

 

"We don't have any evidence of any credible source that would indicate the presence of alien technology in our skies," he told Space.com. "And we never have."
"The idea that the government is keeping something like this secret is just totally absurd."
"There's no motivation to do so."

"If you sent that spacecraft to our closest neighbor star, Alpha Centauri, it would take 80,000 years to get there," 

"Nobody really wants to think that this Earth is the only place in the vastness of space where life has emerged. Even that idea is also kind of absurd."

 

Your comment was: 

21 hours ago, MrsGently said:

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

A = Bill Diamond's thoughts.  

B = MrsGently thoughts.  A = B

@Hazzard commented to your comment:

20 hours ago, Hazzard said:

"Why do people have these beliefs? It is because they want to believe," Diamond added.

Which is another thought of Bill Diamond.  

C = Bill Diamond's thoughts.   

In other words, Bill Diamond said something and you whole heartedly agreed with it.  Hazzard quotes something else Diamond said and you automatically think he is dumping on you for some reason.  

Why would that be?  Because you expect people to dump on you!  I.e.  Paranoia Complex of some sort. 

 

[Hazzard]

On 4/25/2024 at 2:35 AM, Procyon said:

>Says that an interstellar civilization's technology would be incomprehensible to us.
>Tries to find one by listening for conventional radio signals.

Even Earth only generated a radio bubble for a century or so, the signals we use today mostly don't penetrate the ionosphere anymore. Aliens visiting Earth may be unlikely, but isn't it even more unlikely that SETI will ever actually find anything the way they're doing it?

I mean, we would need to be listening in the right place for a cosmologically insignificant window of time when another, slightly less advanced species is making radio noise. They would need to be close enough that their signals could get to us without being garbled in the interstellar medium, and/or another species at our own level of tech or slightly higher would need to send us a tight-beam transmission like the Arecibo message out of all the exoplanets they have to choose from, and that's if we're even considered "habitable" by their standards.

 

I think that it cant hurt to keep listening... but Im willing to bet my butt that in the near future (30 years) we will find the signs of life in an exoplanets atmosphere, maybe even signs of technology.

 

https://www.earth.com/news/oxygen-levels-on-distant-planets-reveal-presence-of-alien-technology/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technosignature

 

[ChrLzs]

6 hours ago, Ell said:

That is sad.

One ought not to consume drugs.

I have no remedy for your hallucinations. Perhaps those are due to your diet?

Can I suggest that before you dismiss quite sensible suggestions about the cause/s of your 'sighting', you might want to choose another hobby, like human psychology and flawed perception and the frailty of memories.  May I suggest you take a look at the work of Elizabeth Loftus.

Me, I take the approach that if a new subject comes up, or a suggestion is made that is not something I know much about... instead of simply rejecting it, I go off and look at the research.  Then I think about it.  That way, I learn.

 

If all you want is acceptance of your story, this perhaps isn't the best place.

[Ell]

24 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

you might want to choose another hobby, like human psychology and flawed perception and the frailty of memories.

Thank you for your suggestion.

I do am interested in your particular psychology and in the causes of your hallucinations. If you are inclined to share the problematical issues of your mind, and diet or other circumstances then you may send me a direct message. Keep it brief, please.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why not?  Is it because you are nervous about your lack of knowledge?  Do you not understand the topic well enough?  Or are you perhaps easily convinced by misinformation?  Let's find out shall we..??  Read on, and it's now time for you to walk the walk.

Apparently, you missed the part where I said I am not going through this again. And as I recall it. this person's analysis has been discussed in here twice. I ain't going for three.

 

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

'new forensic techniques'?  Sounds like it's right up my street..  Are you sure you want to go down this path?  Just to give you a hint on where this will go... What does 'forensic' imply?  Glad you asked.  It means that the processes and techniques used are valid, verifiable, and make scientific sense.

Here's a quick bit of imaging 101 - see if you can keep up...  Film images must be digitally scanned (so they can be 'processed'), preferably at the highest available resolution, and using the highest available level of greyscale (or color) bit depth.  The most interesting part of that is that you end up with something that might be a quite large file, but its content is pretty simple and easily analysed.  So just by looking at the file, I can tell you what exact resolution it has, and also what the color depth is.  More about that later..    Nothing can be truly 'hidden', in that respect - subtle details are either in the dataset or not and the processes to 'enhance' / reveal subtle details are well-understood and EXPLAINABLE and REPEATABLE.  But there's more - NEITHER the original film OR the best scan of that film you can make has anything that is beyond a 2D 'flat' image.  If you know what you are doing (that's not you, Earl), then you'd know that details in the film or in the scanned file can't be hidden.  If there are any hard to see details, the 'researcher' can simply point them out using tools related to contrast or 'gamma'.  They can tell us exactly what they did and what tools they used, so ANYONE can follow the steps and VERIFY what was 'under'.  BTW, no forensic researcher would use words like under or over - there are NO layers.  Original images are 2D, so there's no over / under...   And ANY decent image editor will have all the tools you need to reveal subtle contrast issues, or details that aren't easy to see in very bright or dark regions of the image.

What's more, the processes that you CAN and CANNOT use are all very well known, and they are pretty easy to explain.  Note that most image adjustments made in an image editor will either add or destroy detail - obviously not a good thing.  So if you used the wrong technique/s .. you completely wrecked the data and destroyed any 'forensic' value it might have had before you ruined it... 

Now maybe you're just 'splaining it wrong, but when you say "something" was "under" the cloud of smoke, then any real digital image analyst will laugh at your silliness.  They'll ask you to demonstrate the technique used so we or anybody can run the numbers to see any subtle details.

In other words, if you have been misled by a pretender rather than someone with actual forensic image skills... well, that will be embarrassing.  You could maybe make something useful from it by learning from your errors, but I doubt it.  Now, I'll be delighted to elaborate, but before doing so.....

Thanks so much for the compliment, but I don't do 'miracles'.  Having said that, I'm really, really good at digital image analysis.  But you've made specific claims there about what I said, so you will now link to the thread and postings involved.  I don't wish to start working on this, only to find you do a skyeagle and say "that wasn't it" and change the subject....  Oh, and believe me, I'll report you if you refuse.  I've had enough of this sort of bull.  QUOTE and CITE your claims.

Mmm.  Very mature.  Now, provide the link so I can get started.  BTW, even if you don't provide the link/s, I have bookmarks that I suspect refer exactly to what you are claiming, so I'll do it anyway, and really rub in your refusal.  

Anyway, good luck.  😎

I doubt I was duped by a fraud lab tech because his conclusion and the observations of a million eyewitnesses, match, there IS an object up there. after all. 

 

have a nice day.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

While we wait for EoT to return triumphantly and link me to the posts of mine he is whining about...

Here's a quick Pop-Quiz on the image above.  Does something look odd to you?  There's several issues, but one that sticks out like the proverbial dog's gonads....  I can help a little - here's a couple of crops from a MUCH higher resolution image.  One showing the rather bright oofos, and the other showing the cars:



Hint - is there something missing from those cars ...??    Think about it....

 

Think about this:

My father was one of many men on duty in the building in the background, the Salem Power Plant. There were also eyewitnesses from the neighborhood
right behind the Coast Guard Station called the Willows. Don't even think of calling my father a liar.

The photo is real

[Dejarma]

15 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

My father was one of many men on duty in the building in the background, the Salem Power Plant.

prove it

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, Ell said:

Thank you for your suggestion.

Anytime.  Have you considered any of the issues I mentioned? - perhaps you might wish to contribute to the forum by explaining how you 'know' they were/are not applicable to you.

2 hours ago, Ell said:

I do am interested in your particular psychology and in the causes of your hallucinations.

??  I did tell you, above.  It was tiredness, or more correctly, utter exhaustion.  Self induced.  I was driving in a flat region of remote Australia, and I deliberately went way beyond the point of needing a nap.  I started to see various animals that are definitely not found in the Australian outback.  Hallucinations like this can happen to anyone, due to a variety of reasons - it's also taught in the defence forces, so that soldiers are not surprised if it ever happens to them in a battleground situation.

2 hours ago, Ell said:

If you are inclined to share the problematical issues of your mind, and diet or other circumstances then you may send me a direct message. Keep it brief, please.

Thanks for the offer, but I would prefer to have any medical issues dealt with by verifiable professionals.

Edited April 28 by ChrLzs