Aliens Poll

[Moontanman]

Don't you think, though, that if aliens do visit Earth on a regular basis to contact a few humans, that evidence of such visits would be very obvious, even if governments try to cover it up? After all, I'm pretty certain that all of those hitchhiking microorganisms will be very happy to make a home right here on Earth, even if the intelligent ET's aren't.

 

I can think of two reasons that wouldn't be true, one is that if the microorganisms were significantly different from us we wouldn't be able to find them at all. All the tests for microbes currently in use only test for and can only detect microbes very close to us in composition. Two is that if the microbes were indeed close to us in composition we wouldn't be able to tell them from us :) Kind of a microbial catch 22 :hyper: This would also hold true to any infectious organisms, it's highly unlikely that any alien microbes could infect us due to the whole separate evolution thing, in other words we share more with alfalfa wilt than we would with any alien microbes but if they did indeed infect us we couldn't tell them from the run of the mill microbes we already encounter on the earth.

[Moontanman]

So Ed Mitchell is claiming that some “old timers” – presumably retired army and civilian staff who worked at Walker Air Force Base in Roswell, NM, prior to its conversion to a civilian airport and industrial park – told him words to the effect that “the Roswell incident was a real incident”. Note that, when asked “what did they tell you”, he doesn’t report anyone claiming to have actually seen a live or dead alien or piece of spacecraft wreckage, only that they know that such things were recovered, then hidden and knowledge of them covered up by the US government.

 

I’ve had people swear to me that they have actually been abducted, taken into space, and full-on all-orifice probed by ETs. Although I’m certain Mitchell’s sources are more credible than mine (that his reportedly don’t claim to have actually seen any evidence, only know of it, IMHO bolsters their credibility), there’s not, IMHO, a qualitative difference in our experiences, other than Mitchell appears to believe what his sources claim is true, while I believe that what my sources claim is not – although some of mine, I think, truly believe their accounts.

 

:) The lines Mitchell closes his “setting the record strait” interview with say it all, I think:

Well, I think the only thing that people should understand is that our star system has a finite lifetime and we've got to continue our space exploration. We only have a couple more billion years to be on the planet. We don't have to rush it but eventually we have to be off this planet if we want to survive as a species.

The only disagreement I have with this statement of Mitchell's on this one is his numbers: from what I’ve read, the expected 10% increase in the Sun’s luminosity over the next 1 billion years will likely result in the extinction of all surface life along with the vaporization of all surface water. Macrofauna like humans will likely become unsupportable hundreds of millions of years before this.

 

My hope is that humans will be independent of Earth’s ecosystem within centuries, not hundreds of millions of years, in no small part owing to the efforts of pioneers like Mitchell and thousands of less well known scientists and engineers. The question of whether the “Roswell incident was real” or not will, I suspect, be an obscure footnote in history long before then.

 

It is far more possible the solar system is already inhabited by aliens than it is they come here FTL from another star system, see this thread.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/space/14616-new-idea-about-ufo-s.html

[Reaper]

I don't see how your objections can hold up to scrutiny Moontanman:

 

I can think of two reasons that wouldn't be true, one is that if the microorganisms were significantly different from us we wouldn't be able to find them at all. All the tests for microbes currently in use only test for and can only detect microbes very close to us in composition.

 

They will be most likely similar in composition to us, given that life in much more likely to be carbon-based in general. Indeed, if these aliens can walk on Earth without an environmental protection suit and can abduct people without having to separate them in a separate environment (as is usually depicted in these pictures or ships or abduction accounts), or have an interest in Earth in general, then they will most certainly be carbon based, like us. They would be oxygen breathing, water based, carbon based lifeforms. Any microorganisms that hitched a ride to Earth will most certainly find plenty of niches for them to inhabit right here.

 

Two is that if the microbes were indeed close to us in composition we wouldn't be able to tell them from us :shrug: Kind of a microbial catch 22 :) This would also hold true to any infectious organisms, it's highly unlikely that any alien microbes could infect us due to the whole separate evolution thing, in other words we share more with alfalfa wilt than we would with any alien microbes but if they did indeed infect us we couldn't tell them from the run of the mill microbes we already encounter on the earth.

 

And that one is not true. We would know that they were alien because they would have no common ancestry to any of the life forms here on Earth. Even if evolution is convergent, we should be able to tell straight away whether or not they are indigenous to Earth because their DNA is most likely to have differences. The only way we wouldn't tell the difference is if they happened to carry the exact same diseases, which is extraordinary unlikely given that their planets will have had very different evolutionary histories.

 

And even if they didn't carry any microorganisms dangerous to us, how can we guarantee that they will not be dangerous to other fauna or plant life on Earth? Regardless of the circumstances, their visits should have a noticeable effect on our ecosystem.

 

To further support my point; history, pre-history, and the fossil record is full of examples of organisms alien to a given ecosystem wreaking havoc on indigenous lifeforms. For example, when humans started to inhabit Australia and North America, most of the mega-fauna was wiped out within less than 1000 years of their arrival. If aliens have visited, or do visit Earth, on a regular basis, it will have a noticeable effect, biological or otherwise.

[Reaper]

The only disagreement I have with this statement of Mitchell's on this one is his numbers: from what I’ve read, the expected 10% increase in the Sun’s luminosity over the next 1 billion years will likely result in the extinction of all surface life along with the vaporization of all surface water. Macrofauna like humans will likely become unsupportable hundreds of millions of years before this.

 

Well, it is going to take a little longer for the oceans themselves to boil away. Any life on Earth 1 billion years from now will not be in good shape regardless. You can view a probable timeline of the future of Earth right here: Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here's what wiki has to say about it:

The Earth's increasing surface temperature will accelerate the inorganic CO2 cycle, reducing its concentration to the lethal levels for plants (10 ppm for C4 photosynthesis) in 900 million years. The lack of vegetation will result in the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere, so animal life will become extinct within several million more years.[24] But even if the Sun were eternal and stable, the continued internal cooling of the Earth would have resulted in a loss of much of its atmosphere and oceans (due to lower volcanism).[132] After another billion years the surface water will have completely disappeared[133] and the mean global temperature will reach 70°C.[24] The Earth is expected to be effectively habitable for another 500 million years or so.[134]

 

So, we have another half-billion years or so before things get real bad.

 

My hope is that humans will be independent of Earth’s ecosystem within centuries, not hundreds of millions of years, in no small part owing to the efforts of pioneers like Mitchell and thousands of less well known scientists and engineers. The question of whether the “Roswell incident was real” or not will, I suspect, be an obscure footnote in history long before then.

 

I'm pretty certain that the colonization of space by humans will be inevitable, and perhaps it will come sooner than a few centuries :shrug: .

[Turtle]

...To further support my point; history, pre-history, and the fossil record is full of examples of organisms alien to a given ecosystem wreaking havoc on indigenous lifeforms. For example, when humans started to inhabit Australia and North America, most of the mega-fauna was wiped out within less than 1000 years of their arrival. If aliens have visited, or do visit Earth, on a regular basis, it will have a noticeable effect, biological or otherwise.

 

There is now good evidence for a meteor/comet impact having wiped out N. America's mega-fauna. Here's part 1 of a 7 part series on the topic:

YouTube - North American Comet Catastrophe 10,900 BC Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o

 

I don't see your arguments as any better than anyones' on the opposing side, with all your unsupported qualifications such as 'most', 'likely', 'noticeable', 'pretty certain', etcetera. :hihi: :lol:

[Reaper]

That's not what a little known book known as Guns, Germs, and Steel has to say. And I wasn't even aware of the comet theory until now. But even then I doubt it will hold up in scrutiny, why weren't the humans wiped out with them? Why did it only affect North America and Australia, and at different times (separated by tens thousands of years apparently)? Why was much of the plant life intact when the extinctions occurred, apparently enough so that the human settlers could thrive off of? Why did happen to coincide with the arrival of humans, and not at any earlier time? It is not a mainstream theory. A comet impact would have a much bigger impact on the world.

 

On the other hand, there are very well documented cases of organisms alien to one environment wrecking havoc on indigenous lifeforms. It is logical to conclude that visiting aliens would have the same effect, especially if they have been visiting as often as it is claimed. And you have yet to address the fact that they should also influence the societal and technological development of our species, I'm sure our governments would be very interested in trading technology. Why aren't we seeing exotic weaponry or technology being used, that is presumably hundreds of years ahead of anything we can reliably produce? When the Europeans came into contact with the Polynesians and the Maori, one of the first technologies traded was guns, something that they have never seen before in their entire history.

[Reaper]

I don't see your arguments as any better than anyones' on the opposing side, with all your unsupported qualifications such as 'most', 'likely', 'noticeable', 'pretty certain', etcetera.

 

No, they are. You just don't seem to understanding that biological exchanges can happen quite easily, especially if the aliens have no suits on.

[Turtle]

That's not what a little known book known as Guns, Germs, and Steel has to say. And I wasn't even aware of the comet theory until now. But even then I doubt it will hold up in scrutiny, why weren't the humans wiped out with them? Why did it only affect North America and Australia, and at different times (separated by tens thousands of years apparently)? Why was much of the plant life intact when the extinctions occurred, apparently enough so that the human settlers could thrive off of? Why did happen to coincide with the arrival of humans, and not at any earlier time? It is not a mainstream theory. A comet impact would have a much bigger impact on the world.

 

If you watch all 7 videos, you will see it was indeed worldwide. Again, you 'even doubt' isn't enough. I have seen the Guns, Germs, Steel documentary, and it has some compelling arguments. It does not counter the evidence for an impact over N. America ~12,000 years ago.

 

And you have yet to address the fact that they should also influence the societal and technological development of our species, I'm sure our governments would be very interested in trading technology. Why aren't we seeing exotic weaponry, or inventions completely un-thought of springing out of nowhere? When the Europeans came into contact with the Polynesians and the Maori, one of the first technologies traded was guns.

 

I think Moontan has discussed the idea that they simply watch, with a non-interference policy. Something akin to what the Brazilians have adopted for that lost tribe in the Amazon. As to why the US government would cover it up, I'd say because as Mitchel said, we can't defend against them. There is also that think-tank report (Brookings Institute)from decades ago suggesting people would panic if they knew about real aliens.

 

I don't care one way or the other; just one more interesting thing about livin' as a human. :)

[Reaper]

If you watch all 7 videos, you will see it was indeed worldwide. Again, you 'even doubt' isn't enough. I have seen the Guns, Germs, Steel documentary, and it has some compelling arguments. It does not counter the evidence for an impact over N. America ~12,000 years ago.

 

Sure it does. According to my sources, there isn't any evidence whatsoever for a large comet striking over North America at anytime in the past 20000 years. In fact it isn't even mentioned in most places. A comet has a large amount of kinetic energy, it would do much more to the biosphere than wipe out mega-fauna. In fact, the last major impact in North America was by a medium sized asteroid, 50,000 years ago. It does not coincide with the extinction of mega-fauna 12,000 years ago. Read up on the Clovis culture sometime.

 

And you are still ignoring my point about Australia, which was settled 40,000 years ago, at the height of the ice age. And then, there was the colonization of the Polynesian islands and the New World expeditions, all of which had a noticeable impact on the ecosystems.

 

I think Moontan has discussed the idea that they simply watch, with a non-interference policy. Something akin to what the Brazilians have adopted for that lost tribe in the Amazon.

 

It only works, though, if they never set foot on the planet, or only use robotic probes that have been sterilized. And in the case of the Amazon tribes, the surviving ones were those who were able to adapt to Eurasian diseases.

 

As to why the US government would cover it up, I'd say because as Mitchel said, we can't defend against them. There is also that think-tank report (Brookings Institute)from decades ago suggesting people would panic if they knew about real aliens.

 

But that doesn't make any sense. If we couldn't defend against them, why would they cover it up? After all, at the height of the cold war it was known that there was no known defense against nuclear weapons. The U.S. Government didn't cover it up because it was imperative that the population knew what to expect when the bombs started falling (and hopefully save a few more lives). Likewise, wouldn't it be in the best interests of national security to inform the public that there are powerful, hostile aliens out there? It would certainly incite the population to make a much stiffer resistance...

 

I don't care one way or the other; just one more interesting thing about livin' as a human. :)

 

Yeah, I know. It's nice speculation, but I just wish there was much more certainty in whether aliens existed or not, or knew where to look.

[Turtle]

Sure it does. According to my sources, there isn't any evidence whatsoever for a large comet striking over North America at anytime in the past 20000 years. In fact it isn't even mentioned in most places. A comet has a large amount of kinetic energy, it would do much more to the biosphere than wipe out mega-fauna. In fact, the last major impact in North America was by a medium sized asteroid, ....

 

 

Erhmmm...you didn't watch the videos, did you? Your sources might widen if you choose to take the time.

Clovis is passee for earliest people; the oldest evidence of people in N. America is now 14,000 year old turds. post #11:http://hypography.com/forums/news-brief/15506-where-did-first-north-americans-come-2.html

On Australia, MichaelAngelica, one of our resident Ozzies, would say it's 80,000 years. I never stop learning.

 

When the gov is spending billions on defense, why would they conceivably want to tell taxpayers 'but we can't defend against X? There's no money in that by golly. :D :)

[Moontanman]

I don't see how your objections can hold up to scrutiny Moontanman:

 

 

They will be most likely similar in composition to us, given that life in much more likely to be carbon-based in general. Indeed, if these aliens can walk on Earth without an environmental protection suit and can abduct people without having to separate them in a separate environment (as is usually depicted in these pictures or ships or abduction accounts), or have an interest in Earth in general, then they will most certainly be carbon based, like us. They would be oxygen breathing, water based, carbon based lifeforms. Any microorganisms that hitched a ride to Earth will most certainly find plenty of niches for them to inhabit right here.

 

Carbon based does not necessarily mean like us, there are so many different ways they could be strikingly different from us I really don't know where to begin, I guess charility would be the first way they could be totally different but still so close they could literally look exactly like us and still not be able to live on the earth except for short periods where they could bring their own food. This would apply to their microbes as well, not to mention no test currently being done could or would detect their presence.

 

Then there is the whole exactly what DNA bases do they use, there are more than 20 possibilities, we only use four. If they used different bases they could walk around here and even eat some of the food (maybe) but they would still not be able to live here nor would their microbes have an easy time. More importantly no test would detect their microbes due to them not having the DNA we test for.

 

Then there is always the possibility they don't use DNA at all, there is no real reason to think all life forms have to use DNA or even the same type of set up we use to transfer information. On the Earth there are life forms that use RNA or even no DNA or RNA in favor of proteins. Then there is the possibility there are ways to encode and transfer we know nothing about, we only have on example of life, there may be and probably are other possibilities. Again no test would detect these different life forms, all tests are geared to test for our specific life type.

 

Then even if they were identical to us there is still reason to think their microbes wouldn't be likely to infect us, microbes seldom jump from on species to another on the earth were all life forms share a distant ancestor. On the Earth life forms that are further apart in decent seldom get each others diseases. so how unlikely would it be for microbes that share no evolutionary history to infect life forms on the earth? Even if they did no test would be able to say "hey look this is an alien microbe" they do not have alien tattooed on their little microbial butts. Any test for microbes that were just like us would show "us" not aliens.

 

 

 

And that one is not true. We would know that they were alien because they would have no common ancestry to any of the life forms here on Earth. Even if evolution is convergent, we should be able to tell straight away whether or not they are indigenous to Earth because their DNA is most likely to have differences. The only way we wouldn't tell the difference is if they happened to carry the exact same diseases, which is extraordinary unlikely given that their planets will have had very different evolutionary histories.

 

Again unless they have alien tattooed on their little microbial butts they would not be found in any DNA test now in use. And the argument given above for any infectious agents would hold true as well. Disease organisms usually evolve along with their hosts. They don't just crop up from no where with out any contact with their host or related organisms.

 

And even if they didn't carry any microorganisms dangerous to us, how can we guarantee that they will not be dangerous to other fauna or plant life on Earth? Regardless of the circumstances, their visits should have a noticeable effect on our ecosystem.

 

Again this arguemnt does not hold up at all for the same reasons.

 

 

To further support my point; history, pre-history, and the fossil record is full of examples of organisms alien to a given ecosystem wreaking havoc on indigenous lifeforms. For example, when humans started to inhabit Australia and North America, most of the mega-fauna was wiped out within less than 1000 years of their arrival. If aliens have visited, or do visit Earth, on a regular basis, it will have a noticeable effect, biological or otherwise.

 

So are you assuming the aliens would be big game hunters and hunt all the animals to extinction? Even on the Earth humans could have brought diseases that were fatal to the animals of those areas not because they were different but because they were similar. When Europeans brought small pox to North America and it wiped out the native civilization it didn't happen because the native Americans were different from Europeans it happened because they were the same but had never been exposed to the diseases the Europeans had been fighting for milenia. Again the similarities were the deciding factor not the differences.

[CraigD]

According to my sources, there isn't any evidence whatsoever for a large comet striking over North America at anytime in the past 20000 years. In fact it isn't even mentioned in most places.

The Younger Dryas impact event, which is to what I think Turtle and the linked videos refer, is fairly new to the literature, appearing as best I can tell in early 2007, but not being known to non-specialists until mid 2007, after it appeared in a Nature magazine news article. I heard about it only a few months ago, when my wife mentioned that there was some new competing theory with my personal favorite “Clovis humans hunted all the big, tasty animals (mammoths, giant sloths, etc) into extinction” (better known as the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis), having missed its mention in the pop science press.

 

So I’d guess Reaper’s sources aren’t wrong, but slightly out-of-date.

A comet has a large amount of kinetic energy, it would do much more to the biosphere than wipe out mega-fauna.

As I understand the theory, yes it does, and yes it did.

 

What appears fairly clear from the Younger Dryas data is that a lot of material with composition characteristic of a comet nucleus was scattered over a large area around the Great Lakes around 10,900 BC, presumably from a single high altitude explosion (scientifically, an airburst like this is still called a “giant impact”, even though the actual impactors may have been small and numerous, rather than giant), followed immediately or close to by a surge in organic sedimentation suggesting a sudden plant and microfauna die-off. The theory speculates that this involved a local “nuclear winter” type ecological catastrophe with widespread forest fires, particulate-induced severe winters, habitat spoiling, etc, driving many species to extinction. Humans weren’t wiped out, but their ways of life so disrupted the artifacts they made changed so greatly that the culture complex we associate with them suddenly disappeared from the archeological record.

 

Another “end of Clovis” theory proposes a similar climate-induced die-off, but proposes that the cause was not a giant impact, but the sudden emptying of the giant ancient glacial Lake Agassiz into the North Atlantic, causing the warm North Atlantic current to “stall”. This theory is especially interesting, as some worry that the current increased melting of Artic Ocean ice may result in a similar climate change, giving us present-day Northeastern North Americans a taste of what the prehistoric Clovis folk endured.

 

All the end of Clovis theories are speculative, and not mutually exclusive: it's plausible that a giant impact, and a sudden ocean current change, prehistoric overhunting, and other events all contributed to the millennium-long climate change and die-off shown in the archeological record. The impact theory, by virtue I think of its newness, and (let’s admit it) sheer coolness, seems to be commanding the spotlight in publications, at conferences, and on TV and the web. Ultimately, I suspect that, like so much of recent prehistory, we’ll be left mostly with intriguing possibilities, but no clear certainties.

[alexander]

Humans are the only intelligent life, and there is no life beyond Earth.

Most humans can't even be considered as intelligent life either... I mean, i see them every day, and even work with some.... well maybe quite a few.... ok, a lot of them.

 

So the first two options are out automatically

 

There's life beyond earth but its only bacteria and simple organisms.

I don't like the fact that it's so definitive with respect to time... that light we see from stars can be billions of years old, there could be life there now, or there could have been life there when the rays left.... so, out by time table from that point on :)

 

As for intelligent life on other planets, well sure there is a high probability for life's existence in other solar systems at some point or another. Intelligent life took millions of years to evolve, problem is we have been on the planet for not even a second of it's life, of which we have been capable of interplanetary communication for only 40-50 years, or picoseconds in the planet's life, so there could have been intelligent life, and there is a chance that there's intelligent life on other planets right now, but as of yet, we have no way of finding it, or reaching it in any feasible amount of human lifetimes...

[Turtle]

Yes! What is this now three or four astronauts that say we have had contact with aliens? I am beginning to think maybe there really is a government cover up. I mean if you can trust a trained astronaut Dr. then who can you trust? It's difficult to think these guys would lie about it.... isn't it? Damn, so much confusion I'm not I'd believe the evening news if they had live footage of a alien space craft on the white house lawn :) then again maybe that's what the governemnt wants, for us to be unable to believe.

 

I heard a radio interview replay last night with this guy; have you heard of him or his book? Very knowledgable & well connected. :doh:

 

UFOs remain a key military and intelligence problem – one demanding unprecedented security and deception. Access to information is on a strictly ‘need to know’ basis. In 1960, former CIA director Admiral Hillenkoetter confirmed that, ‘Behind the scenes, highranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.’ The same is still true today.

...

'UFOS ARE AS REAL AS THE AIRPLANES THAT FLY

OVER YOUR HEAD . . . THE CLASSIFICATION WAS,

FROM THE OUTSET, ABOVE TOP SECRET, SO THE VAST

MAJORITY OF U.S. OFFICIALS AND POLITICIANS, LET

ALONE A MERE ALLIED MINISTER OF DEFENCE, WERE

NEVER IN THE LOOP . . . THE TIME HAS COME TO LIFT

THE VEIL OF SECRECY AND LET THE TRUTH EMERGE

SO THERE CAN BE A REAL AND INFORMED DEBATE

ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS

FACING OUR PLANET TODAY'

 

Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of

Defence (1963–7) in a speech at the University

of Toronto, 25 September 2005

Timothy Good - Notices

[CraigD]

Like several UFOologists, Timothy Good has a history of the sources he quotes in his books disavowing the statements he attributes to them. Paul Hellyer, doesn’t appear to be one of these: though I’ve seen no claim by him to have actually seen an alien or alien spacecraft, he’s professed strong belief in them for at least the last 40 years. I don’t think he did when he was a defense minister under Lester Pearson (1963-68) though he might have – 6/3/1967 he inaugurated a UFO landing pad in St. Paul

 

His main arguments these days seems to focus on fears that the US – the Bush administration in particular – will start an intergalactic war by building military bases on the Moon, and possibly shooting at UFOs:

"The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

(Former Canadian Minister Of Defence Asks Canadian Parliament Asked To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" Civilizations)

 

While I’m the first to acknowledge the Bush administration’s propensity for getting us into wars, I don’t find Hellyer or Good credible. :evil:

[Eclogite]

Then there is the whole exactly what DNA bases do they use, there are more than 20 possibilities, we only use four.

I am not a biochemist, but this just sounds wrong. The four bases are adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Uracil is used in RNA. What are the other fifteen bases?

[nutronjon]

Amusing, there is more acceptence of aliens than God. I haven't read the whole thread, but the post I did read are polite and not the attacks the occur when a person speaks of God.

 

A person who speaks of aliens is

I heard a radio interview replay last night with this guy; have you heard of him or his book? Very knowledgable & well connected

 

But a person who speaks of philosophical concepts of God, is attacked and penalized for preaching.

 

To each his own said the lady as she kissed the cow.