The truth is out... here?

Since we're low on conspiracy theories today, look what the US Government has released:



And here's an interview with the pilot starting at about 5:00 on Fox News:



And here's supporting documentation released by the Government:

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsgl...REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

So, are we alone? Or is all this fake, too?

I want to believe we aren't, but touching, feeling and definitive examinations and testing up close are far more revelatory than anecdotal evidence and grainy sensors.

Are we alone?


Maybe, maybe not. Up to now we have no direct hard evidence. Maybe one day we'll have it.


As for the video footage it's either a highly experimental plane or the video footage was doctored in some way.


Just think of this logically. If the US government knew without a doubt that aliens existed it would not be acting so nonchalant about it.

Not like the US Government can govern the aliens. They're utterly powerless. And that thought... is titillating. =)

I don't know whether this video is real or not, but I cannot believe that out of the billions of planets in the universe that just one -- Earth -- had intelligent life develop. They're out there. Somewhere. One day we may even meet them. That probably won't go well, since it seems the natural human reaction to things we don't understand is to fear it. And if we fear it we destroy it. Hope I'm wrong.

Maybe they will destroy us. Or maybe we'll play pick up basketball with them since they jump 10 feet high and have 6 arms.

Belief in the existence of something in the absence of hard evidence is what you call "faith". So in that sense it really wouldn't be any different from religion.

No, I'd say it's more like playing the percentages.

When did that happen? I don't know, turn your back for five mins...

If you believe we are alone, do you have hard evidence that we are alone in the universe? No? Then that is "faith."
If you believe we are not alone, do you have hard evidence that we are not alone in the universe? No? Then that is "faith."

Wasn't there someone who did a calculation of how even if the chances of life on other planets were miniscule, there'd still be thousands upon thousands of planets where life could exist?

Imagine if aliens visited Earth and the only thing they were allowed to read by humans was the Daily Mail?

I'm absolutely certain they would agree with your assessment!

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There's something called "burden of proof". The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim that something exists.

Fixed that for you.

There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
Source

Yes, it was the "Where is everyone" comment and the Fermi Paradox, math estimated that even if there was a slight chance of another space faring life form, then within 50 million years (long since passed on the time scale being discussed), such a life form could have visited every star in the galaxy by now. IIRC, please correct my foggy memory, if in error.

But it hasn't been observed as fact. Another valid point is whether any space faring life form would have sufficient material resources for such a task.

But with regard to faith... IIRC, the scientific view is evidence based. If we cannot see evidence of life, there is no life. Evidence is the proof that changes belief into fact.

I'm no expert on anything, not a scientist, or math ace. But I think this is why the Fermi Paradox itself is by some considered not much more than an experiment, an exercise. It, by itself, proves nothing. I've read opinions that argue that because there are no facts involved, there is not even a paradox. But this is the realm of people who are far more educated and invested in these things that I will ever be.

There are already quite a few places where life **could** exist. Goldilocks planets, planets where water could exist or could have existed, and so on. I wonder if we have the tech to actually detect life on other planets instead of just detecting stuff/conditions that are known to support life.

Then there's the argument that we are not alone but we are so un-evolved that the advanced species just ignore us and what we are seeing is probably the more curious of their kind observing us. Kind of like you don't really interact with the ants under that plant on your front porch.

Keep in mind we keep looking for life based on earth, and we still dont know how to categorize a virus and keep discovering life where it shouldn't, also besides all the blinds spots in the sky, just becouse a teliscope is zooming one area, doesnt mean the team using it is looking for evidence, so we may have found aliens already, but whoever was looking at them was looking for pulsars, space distortion looking for planets,stars etc.....not aliens comms, hell it could had been a massive ship and it would not have registered cos we were not looking for it

Keep in mind that even scientific “fact” is still largely faith based. Unless you did the research yourself to prove it, you’re taking someone’s word, or writing, on faith that something is true.
This coming from a society that can’t even agree if coffee and wine are healthy or carcinogens. Stories change from week to week it seems.
“Trust” or “faith” is the cornerstone for much of our beliefs, religious, scientific, social or otherwise. Sometimes you just have to go with what you can accept as true, even if you can’t prove it.
Just my .02.

Well, the proof is that "intelligent" (isn't "sentient" a more accurate term?) species do exist in (our) universe - we, human beings!

So in the end we are the evidence of "intelligent" life in (our) universe. So and like DBond hinted, the existence of "intelligent" outside Earth/Solar system is a Statistical Probability (almost impossible for "intelligent" life other than us to not exist) and not faith, at least IMHO.

Now Aliens visiting our planet is a completely different matter! I agree that for those who believe in this, this actually falls into the "faith" realm and there's no evidence of this.

Why aliens still didn't visit our planet, there are a few "hypothesis" such as:
- Other "intelligent" species in (our) universe may not have developed Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel technology, just like us Humans.
- If other "intelligent" species in (our) universe have developed FTL travel technology than they may not have reached out planet since for example they could have traveled to different or opposed "quadrants" of the universe relative to out Solar System.
- Like Ice said, even if an "intelligent" species have or had indeed reached Earth they may not have deemed the Human specie worth of being contacted.

But then again, the 3 points above fall into the "hypothesis" realm...

I find that kind of thinking odd. How would you prove that your mechanic actually changed your oil or put new brakes in? Short of actually witnessing the process yourself, you'd have to take his word. How would you prove that your doctor took out your appendix or gall bladder? You'll have to take his word on it. Do you know that the sun is hot? Or are you taking this on faith? For all you know, the sun could be cool; it's the daytime sky that's hot and when that sky is covered by clouds, that explains why it's cooler on a cloudy day.

There is a group of people who specialize in certain fields and certain studies are peer-reviewed. When that group accepts a "fact" after numerous other experiments come to the same conclusions, then that is a fact. You are of course free to replicate the experiment or test to validate the data for yourself, but you're only really wasting your time.

How do you define "fact"? How do you define "faith"?

faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I could argue that even if you replicated the experiment and got the same result, you've still put your trust/confidence in your faculties (eyes, touch, etc.) so technically, you're still accepting your own data based on your faith that your faculties are working as normal. This is why I find this line of reasoning odd.

How many known stars / solar systems are there again? starting to think that in future that those that believe this is the only planet with life will be considered the crazy ones

A long time ago, people, experts, KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe. Why? Because with their own unassisted eyes, they could look up, watch the sun, moon and stars cross the sky. They KNEW it because they saw it and put it to their own test. You can too. Didn't make it true. For that matter, I haven't proven any better myself, just taken the word of others because I've seen pictures and a globe. LOL One guy a couple of months ago still believed the Earth was flat and so he built a rocket to try to go up and see for himself. He's probably a nut, but I still respect that he built a rocket and wanted to see for himself.
What could we all possibly be wrong about now that in 400 years the correct info will be common knowledge once we learn enough to reinterpret it?



I agree, but we take it on faith that "they", the nameless, faceless, experts...are actually what they say they are. Then someone else runs their own tests and finds whatever it is to be wrong, that _____ is the fact of the matter. All verified by other experts...surely none of whom have an agenda.
What you accept as fact is limited to what you're willing to accept as fact, and that boils down to having faith in these people you believe. Some think the lunar landing was fake, some thing wrasslin' is real.
There are some sleazy characters on late night tv, selling their crap, testosterone enhancements and the like. They claim to be experts, but show no credentials. To me, I don't believe a word of it, but plenty of people out there buy that junk believing these guys to be experts. They choose to have faith in these "experts" whereas I do not.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, just pointing out that faith is a bigger part of what we accept as real than just religious beliefs.

Again, it depends on how you define "faith." When evidence is out there and you can prove it to yourself or believe in the experts who have done it and verified it, you are accepting fact. The cool thing about facts is that it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, it's there.

I think you're also confused with how peer-reviewed research works. When one team in Ohio publishes their findings and is confirmed by a team in China and another in the UK and another team in South Africa, I'm sure each team has an agenda but I doubt they all have the same one To compare these people to late-night TV people is just disrespectful. People who make decisions based on claims of these late-night "experts" are gullible. People who make decisions based on proven research data do not belong in the same group.

There isn't time in a lifetime to go proving for yourself everything you've been taught, learned and accepted as fact, or to verify everyone's credentials, much less read scientific journals to satisfy yourself.
You have faith, to one degree or another, that experts are the experts they claim to be and in the field they're discussing.

My point isn't so much comparing the late night charlatans to Einstein, but to compare that they each have people that are willing to take what they say as fact, because they have faith in them.

I agree with your first line there. Really, it's these two lines that I just find weird:


The first line -- no it isn't. For the common person, probably, but step into any specialized field and there are just facts that are accepted not because of blind belief or faith or authority, but because to prove those facts again is just wasting time. You're supposed to move forward and explore new ideas, prove or disprove new and emerging theories, not re-hash the basics.

The second line -- again no. You have to go with certain things not because you can't prove it, you most certainly can! Want to prove the earth is round? Get rich enough to build your own rocket or find a way into NASA and become an astronaut and you can prove the earth is round. Learn enough of astronomy or geometry or some other field, take measurements, extrapolate on that, and you'll get your numbers to show the earth is round (or roughly spherical). As you said, you don't have time to verify everything, but the experts that you put your faith in tell you the facts not because of their own faith but because of their own experience, knowledge, and experiments.


For the third time now, how do YOU define faith?
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

There are two definitions from a quick search, but realize that #1 has nothing to do with #2. I could have faith in my doctor when he says this treatment is best for me. I have trust and confidence in his skills and knowledge. If I push him, I could get him to explain why he says this treatment is best and he would point me to a good number of research and trials and other forms of evidence. The spiritual definition of faith, #2, the belief in Jesus Christ, the supernatural, heaven and earth, is very different. So putting your faith in experts is only done so because you do not have the time, knowledge, or skill to verify what they are saying but if you did, you could very well do the verification for yourself, but this does not mean that scientific fact is faith-based.

The first definition covers it all IMO, including religion.

"but the experts that you put your faith in tell you the facts not because of their own faith but because of their own experience, knowledge, and experiments."

Ok. I doubt you learn everything from people like that though, but take others word for it too. Things get distorted the more people that are involved.
That's enough hijack for now.

Yes, in a way, you take others word for it but usually, your own work or research depends on what you've taken others word for, so if that word is untrue, then your own work would unravel and then you would take steps to figure out why. Perhaps take some other person's word, see if that holds true, and so on. Unlike religion, things in science are tested constantly so any "untrue word" is weeded out.

While the first definition covers it all, the second definition separates religion from science. You can have trust/confidence that the findings of different research teams are true, and you can have trust/confidence that your religious beliefs are true. However, you can dig up the research papers and methodologies of the research teams and if you want, do your own experiments to replicate/validate their findings (proof) but you cannot do so for religion.



Indeed, but I thank you for the interesting discussion!

What I've always found fascinating about this assumption is that it assumes that life simply "developed" on its own from nothing. What if it did not? I myself have a hard time fathoming the incredible complexities that comprise our biochemical mechanisms simply "happened" because a few chemicals sloshed together, and somehow those chemicals bargained amongst themselves and thought it was a good idea to first think, and then to reproduce, and to figure out a way to encode their blueprints into molecules that would examine themselves for errors and repair where needed, and then divide, and then further decide that it was probably best if only half the code was combined with another capsule because it was in the best interests of diversity and survival.

I have a really hard time with this.

So for me, for life to exist outside of Earth, it likely was created by something. What that is, I don't know. And the whole chicken in the egg paradox, well, to me, it doesn't matter. =)

And I do hope beyond hope life does exist beyond our dusty berm.

Maybe it's because it's not like that. I think the early organisms first really reproduced before doing any thinking, at least as how we define "thinking" nowadays. There are excellent videos on this on YouTube. Are you trying to argue that life on Earth has been "designed"? There's a few good videos by Mr. Dawkins explaining about how the eye developed. Just use that and imagine how the organism developed from single-celled to multi-celled.



I do believe (faith, with no evidence) that it does, simply because of probabilities. Whether that life is intelligent or not, whether it is capable of space travel or not, whether it is even as advanced as us, less advanced, or more advanced, doesn't matter to me. I believe they are out there.

You've hit on exactly the point I was trying to make in my initial post in this thread! We have no hard evidence so all we can really say to the question of whether or not life exists outside of Earth is "maybe". And while the mathematical probability indicates that there's a good chance it does exist, it's still not the same thing as having direct evidence.


And besides, all of this is really just mental masturbation until if and when the day comes that humanity actually has CONTACT with that extra-terrestrial life.

Well, what happens if we do find evidence that life did exist on Mars, but no longer do so today? What if by the time we make contact with extra-terrestrial life and we develop the tech to go to them, we're a good thousand years too late as they've nuked themselves into oblivion or their planet got hit by a meteor? Do we have to make contact with life that exists at the time of contact or is evidence of previous life enough?

If we find actual hard evidence that intelligent life used to exist on Mars or some other planet then that would definitely be major worldwide news. It just wouldn't be nearly as big as humans encountering a live alien species.

I think timing comes into play. Just how long does an intelligent species last? There might be all kinds of life, but the window where that life is conscious, much less space faring, would be hard to line up with ourselves. Then distance and detection, but what if we missed life on Mars by a few million years? Some other life might come after us in our own solar system a few million after us.
I really like the way the Cosmic Calendar lays things out like that. The history of the universe, expressed as a calendar. Big Bang the first second of Jan 1. Humans as we know it just appeared in the last seconds of 12/31. Our time here has been very short.
What if other life anywhere near us existed on "12/30", or earlier? Maybe we were slow to develop? Maybe we were faster and other life hasn't happened yet? Someone has to be first. A few million years makes a big difference, but in the life of the universe, it's nothing.

There's even a theory that we must've come from Mars!

Sagan was wise beyond his years, and I too have always loved the calendar. Damn shame he left us at such a young age.

Just ran across this:


https://qz.com/1314111/we-may-have-answered-the-fermi-paradox-we-are-alone-in-the-universe/

From this perspective:

Interesting article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-are-alone-in-the-universe/#29cabdfc7d3b

So let's get this straight:

Every government that has the moxie to garner attention from outer space secretly knows about the Space Aliens that have been visiting us for (at least) a hundred years on the regular.

And not a one of them, regardless of peace or war, change of governments, and time itself, has ever broken the secrecy that they hold together about it. Every single government worker, researcher, and politician that would be required to be in the know of this has kept the secret of this right on into their graves, no matter their personal situations. They never, ever have a change of heart and reveal their secret. Ever. Over the course of multiple governments in the span of at least 100 years.

This in light of the fact that some governments have leaped ahead of others in technology in a rapid fashion, hinting at the possibility of working with said Space Aliens. Those lagging behind might spy on each other, might steal technologies, might even resort to proxy wars to gain it, but would never reveal that the other side was working with Space Aliens.

Because, you know, it's a secret.

Article assumes abiogenesis. I can't buy that theory, though, given the complexities demonstrated even in the tiniest of cellular organelles. Assuming life did not form spontaneously, and was engineered and spread either by hand or by panspermia, then quite possibly there isn't much out there to observe.

And, assuming we may have been created rather than distilled randomly from nothing, whatever designed us may have also figured out how to exit our Universe, entirely. Hence nothing seen, nothing found.

Or perhaps the Universe is a hologram, after all, and we're being observed and tested from afar, inside a perfectly designed simulation made to trick us into believing we ourselves are our own gods, and once the nonsensical human power complex gets too big, our master pushes the delete button and flushes us down the bitbucket drain, starting over again.