UFOs and the National Security State by Richard M. Dolan & Jacques F. Vallee

[jpappl]

Moog

And it is quite likely there is life of some kind 'out there', i.e. around stars somewhere else in this or other galaxies.
What people are questioning is that some of that life has come over here to probe cattle, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Yes, I understand. That is what my point was. They are two separate things.

[Swift]

My point was simply to separate what comes across often as "we have no evidence of ET craft visiting us" so they must not have visisted. Which may or may not be true. In other words, they may have visited, they may be now, but maybe they are using such technological devices that we are unable to detect them.

But the speculatoin that "there are ETs visiting us but they are using technology that makes them completely undetectable by us" is completely untestable, it is not a scientific idea. There is no way to prove or disprove it. I might as well say that undetectable elves are visiting us. The idea is fine as speculation, but it really can't go anywhere beyond speculation.

[Paul Lyon]

One also recalls that all observations are all partially subjective interpretations. Which of course goes a long way to explain why they are so unreliable, but also means that you can’t divorce one from the other when considering, say, a UAP sighting.

All observations including controlled ones in a scientific experiment are necessarily partly subjective. The attempt to make them antiseptically objective is puritannical and delusional.

There are UFO reports that consist of 1. On-site observation; 2. Consistent radar confirmation; and 3. Consistent subsequent observation by additional witnesses and radar technicians. These are as reliable as possible. It is wrong to assume that UFO reports are in the main unreliable simply because you wish not to credit them.

If there were no UFO reports at all, no eyewitness accounts, how many of you would conclude without a doubt that there were no such things as UFOs?

This is an oddly phrased question. Obviously if there weren’t any UAP reports, quite a lot fewer people would think of the possibility them being evidence of extraterrestrial craft in our skies. In fact the number of such people would be just about zero. Also, there’d probably be quite a bit less interest in considering the possibility of alien life in general. Still some tho, I would think.

The question is actually quite simple and should not have upset you or the others. The inability to answer it shows that you are not thinking clearly about the problem. The question poses the situation in which there were no reports but the idea of UFOs was proposed to you. And your answer? That fewer would believe in them. In other words, your position is that they are "real" to the extent that people "believe" in them. That is irrational: if they are real, it could not be because we imagined them.

So you aren’t advocating “UFOs as extraterrestrial craft” hypothesis after all, just spitballin’ nice-sounding ideas...

Ideally, rational method would not, at least on the surface, reflect prejudice. One does not advocate a proposition, only asks whether it might hold water. Later, with some work, you might decide to commit to it, even advocate for its adoption. At any rate, I don't see the use of the sarcasm. If you do not want to think about a possibility, or discuss it... simply don't.

...and have a degree in armchair psychology as well. Nice.

I suppose the lesson from this is that one ought not to show any interest in psychological behavior or point out a curious reaction to an idea without having a college degree in psychology? How do you know that I do not have such a degree? If I do have one, what else should I do with it? Is psychology as well as astronomy, folklore, physics, etc., cut off to all but experts?

It’s most certainly not overlooked… But it must be treated as what it is: a possibility. We just can’t calculate anything approaching a proper likelihood for the existence of technological alien civilizations at the time, much less be certain that they exist.

Taking the whole universe into account, this is correct, but the current work on this problem has focused on using the bigger numbers as a backdrop to figure probabilities. So far, the upshot is that it is highly likely that complex life exists within 50 light years on scores of planets and moons. In our solar system, evidence of life and conditions for it have been found off the Earth.

Extrapolating from what has so far been found-- a number of planets outside the solar system, some of which could support life, and so forth-- Hawking and others have decided to work with the strong probability that intelligent life exists in our stellar neighborhood. Drake's equation puts advanced intelligent life nearby, with the probability increasing the greater distance from Earth.

Science has concluded that intelligent life probably exists close enough to Earth to travel here and that visits by an advanced civilization are possible. If we had to act only on those things about which we were "certain," we would do very little and plan for less.

[moog]

"we have no evidence of ET craft visiting us" so they must not have visisted.

I have not seen anyone on this forum state that.
A more accurate statement would be that there is "no reason to believe" that ET craft have visited down to the complete lack of evidence and staggeringly huge technical hurdles of inter-stellar flight.

[jpappl]

Swift,

But the speculatoin that "there are ETs visiting us but they are using technology that makes them completely undetectable by us" is completely untestable, it is not a scientific idea. There is no way to prove or disprove it. I might as well say that undetectable elves are visiting us. The idea is fine as speculation, but it really can't go anywhere beyond speculation.

I agree. That is all it is.

The only way to prove it is to develop the ability to detect them.

I was trying not to leap to assumptions or to assign magical qualities to the ET's whether they exist or not. I don't think a nano-scale probe is out of the realm of reality so I think it is a reasonable possibilty. I was using it as a way to show that we could be known to them but they don't want us to know them.

They for a variety of reasons either can't make themselves known or don't want to be known. They may be out there and think they are all alone, also not capable yet of traveling the stars.

Who knows. Until we have the evidence, it's all speculation.

That being said, I strongly believe that life exists throughout the universe, but to what level that life has evolved is unknown.

[jpappl]

Moog,

I have not seen anyone on this forum state that.
A more accurate statement would be that there is "no reason to believe" that ET craft have visited down to the complete lack of evidence and staggeringly huge technical hurdles of inter-stellar flight.

Sure, I agree with that. One should not blindly believe without evidence. My suggestion is that the visitation might be beyond our ability to gather or obtain the evidence.

Would we even know what the ET craft looks like if we saw it ? Can we see it ?

So this is not to say there are invisible flying probes in our air space but if there were we wouldn't know it.

All speculation of course.

[NEOWatcher]

The only way to prove it is to develop the ability to detect them.

...And, the only way to detect them is to know what magical quality makes them undetectable.

It seems like the only way we are going to detect them is through serendipity or through ET leaving hard evidence. Either way, we seem to be out of the equation.

[HenrikOlsen]

The only way to prove it is to develop the ability to detect them.

And there's no way to disprove it.
Since this is also true of Her Pinkishness the Invisible Unicorn, I want you to tell me why I should consider belief in one to be less silly than belief in the other?

[captain swoop]

Consistent radar confirmation; and 3. Consistent subsequent observation by additional witnesses and radar technicians

Twice you have posted this. As someone who has worked with Air Warning, Navigation and Surface Warning radar for a living in the RN I haven't seen any convincing Radar Confirmation.

[Paul Lyon]

Twice you have posted this. As someone who has worked with Air Warning, Navigation and Surface Warning radar for a living in the RN I haven't seen any convincing Radar Confirmation.

I posted a whole lot more, too, and I don't see it. What, did you get an advance copy?

[Jim]

I posted a whole lot more, too, and I don't see it. What, did you get an advance copy?

In a way, yes, he did.

Since you are new here (9 posts at the moment), the board software holds your posts for Moderator action before showing them to the general public. As a Mod, captain swoop can see them in the thread before they've been validated. But, there's no clue that they have not been validated and cannot be seen by everyone (they don't glow orange or anything).

[jpappl]

NEOwatcher

And, the only way to detect them is to know what magical quality makes them undetectable.

It seems like the only way we are going to detect them is through serendipity or through ET leaving hard evidence. Either way, we seem to be out of the equation.

I agree.

We either are not advanced enough to find them in our space or they are not in our space.

Maybe we develop a system like a net that would uncover any foreign spy nano-probes in the future and instead find ET probes in our space by chance.

[jpappl]

HenrikOlsen

And there's no way to disprove it.
Since this is also true of Her Pinkishness the Invisible Unicorn, I want you to tell me why I should consider belief in one to be less silly than belief in the other?

Good question, since there is no way to disprove either.

There is a slight difference IMO.

Neither is based on any evidence. However, the idea of a nano-scale probe is not unrealistic. Where we are technologically now, allows us to see somewhat into the future, not any real specifics, but we can argue that certain things are likely.

For example. We can't say that one day we will all be driving electric cars, but the current trend in battery technology and the rate of improvement leads us in the direction that we will be able to drive farther on a single charge for the same size battery. We can also assume that the cost of these will come down over time with mass production.

We can see the current work in the nano-tech world and realize the potential in a variety of fields. We are not cheating any laws or assinging any magic to this. This is real.

Are ET nano-scale probes real. Who knows. But what I am suggesting is:

If there is an advanced ET society out there, hundreds if not thousands of years more advanced than us.

They probably have them. The next question would be. Are they here checking us out ?

Again, who knows.

So to answer why you should believe in one over the other. It depends on what you feel is the likelihood of an advanced ET society is compared with an invisible unicorn.

[Garrison]

HenrikOlsen

So to answer why you should believe in one over the other. It depends on what you feel is the likelihood of an advanced ET society is compared with an invisible unicorn.

No it depends on the quality of the available evidence for alien visitations to Earth versus unicorns and frankly the quality of the evidence for alien visitors is so poor as to render the question unanswerable.

[PetersCreek]

However, the idea of a nano-scale probe is not unrealistic.

Unrealistic by what standard? Wouldn't a lot depend on the level of performance ascribed to this hypothetical nano-probe? For instance, would these probes send telemetry to a nearby mothership that we also can't detect or are they transmitting data over interstellar distances? Do they communicate with each other? Are they doing so using a medium/technology that also isn't known to exist, à la Star Trek's "subspace"? Does the telemetry work both ways? That is, are they directly controlled, self-guiding, or a bit of both?

There are so many unanswered questions in areas like materials technology, energy sources, and so on, that layers of uncertainty build up quickly and thickly. Pretty soon, in my estimation, you have an Appeal to Super Advanced Technology that is practically indistinguishable from an Appeal to Magic.

[HenrikOlsen]

So to answer why you should believe in one over the other. It depends on what you feel is the likelihood of an advanced ET society is compared with an invisible unicorn.

Actually it depends on the likelihood of a technology making it feasible to travel thousands of light years to then fly around invisibly apart from picking up random persons to molest, compared to a pink invisible unicorn.

The "evidence" for the existence of the unicorn is after all thousands of years older than the "evidence" for aliens.

And both are indistinguishable from magic.

[jpappl]

Garrison,

No it depends on the quality of the available evidence for alien visitations to Earth versus unicorns and frankly the quality of the evidence for alien visitors is so poor as to render the question unanswerable.

We don't have knowledge here, that is clear.

But that wasn't the question. The question is why should he believe in one over the other and I offered and explanation as to why and it is valid.

There is no evidence of invisible unicorns and there is no evidence of ET nano probes but there is evidence of nano-scale technology.

The question is also not whether there are ET probes in our space but whether an advanced ET species would have nano-scale probes.

Logically, it then depends on whether you believe in the likelihood of an advanced ET society over an invisible unicorn.

If your belief is there probably are advanced ET societies than they may very well have nano-scale probes for use. Which I think most would agree is the best way to research far off places.

If your belief is there is not any advanced species beyond us then no probes.

The question is not whether they are or are not here or have been here. It is about the possibility and then the probability.

I would break it down like this.

Advanced ET- Possible ? Yes Probable ? Yes Evidence ? No
Invisible unicorn- Possible ? Yes Probable ? No Evidence ? No

[PetersCreek]

I would break it down like this.

Advanced ET- Possible ? Yes Probable ? Yes Evidence ? No
Invisible unicorn- Possible ? Yes Probable ? No Evidence ? No

One obvious place that your breakdown breaks down is, probability is not a "yes" or "no" proposition.

[jpappl]

HenrikOlsen

Actually it depends on the likelihood of a technology making it feasible to travel thousands of light years to then fly around invisibly apart from picking up random persons to molest, compared to a pink invisible unicorn.

Why would a probe need to molest persons or do cow experiments ?
Why would it have to make itself known ?

Powering a microscopic sized un-manned probe would be a lot easier than loading up a monster ship capable of hauling enough people and materials to last such a trip.

The probablility of an advanced species having such a device considering that we are already delving into that world is very high.

So, again, it depends on your belief or lack of in advanced ET societies.

If you truly believe the probability of an invisible unicorn is the same as the probability of an advanced ET society than I have your answer.

If you believe in the probability of a more advanced ET society, then you should also believe they could have nano-scale probes.

That doesn't mean that they are or have spyed on us, and it doesn't mean they have not.

[jpappl]

Peterscreek

One obvious place that your breakdown breaks down is, probability is not a "yes" or "no" proposition.

LOL, yes well I was trying to simplyfy it. Let me put it this way, I don't believe in invisible unicorns and there is nothing to support the idea of them. But I think there is a very valid debate on the likelihood of ET and some of them may be way beyond us. Since we are here, unless we are in fact the only ones to make it. Then with us and our history to look at, there are probably others.

[HenrikOlsen]

Advanced ET- Possible ? Yes Probable ? Yes Evidence ? No
Invisible unicorn- Possible ? Yes Probable ? No Evidence ? No

I would instead break it down as:
Advanced ET- Possible?Yes Probable?unknowable Probable here?no Evidence?No
Invisible unicorn- Possible?Yes Probable?No Probable here?no Evidence ? No

[PetersCreek]

If you believe in the probability of a more advanced ET society, then you should also believe they could have nano-scale probes.

Logic does not dictate that one should follow the other. Even if a more advanced ET civilization exists...and even if they have some form of super advanced nano-technology...you do not know that the purported level of performance is even physically possible...or that it is even possible to get them here. With those to huge unknowns, it would seem that assigning a probability of "yes" is without a firm basis.

[jpappl]

Peterscreek,

Unrealistic by what standard? Wouldn't a lot depend on the level of performance ascribed to this hypothetical nano-probe? For instance, would these probes send telemetry to a nearby mothership that we also can't detect or are they transmitting data over interstellar distances? Do they communicate with each other? Are they doing so using a medium/technology that also isn't known to exist, à la Star Trek's "subspace"? Does the telemetry work both ways? That is, are they directly controlled, self-guiding, or a bit of both?

There are so many unanswered questions in areas like materials technology, energy sources, and so on, that layers of uncertainty build up quickly and thickly. Pretty soon, in my estimation, you have an Appeal to Super Advanced Technology that is practically indistinguishable from an Appeal to Magic

Yes and I agree we shouldn't just assign magical qualities.

This is all speculation on my part but it is based much on what we know now and are currently trying to learn to manipulate.

If we were to go back 500 years in time and present an Ipod to the local farmer, it would also appear as magic even though for us it is a fairly routine device.

This does not mean your questions are not valid, they are and very relevant to the likelihood or not of such a device being used and to what effectiveness.

Maybe in the next twenty years we will have ourselves answered these questions by having one of our own.

It goes without saying that if we can create a nano-probe to spy on other far off places and one believes there are more advanced ET societies or even ones that are similar to us in technological advances. Then it stands to reason that we also may be spyed on by them.

[jpappl]

HenrikOlsen

I would instead break it down as:
Advanced ET- Possible?Yes Probable?unknowable Probable here?no Evidence?No
Invisible unicorn- Possible?Yes Probable?No Probable here?no Evidence ? No

That's reasonable. The only way to change the probable is to make the discovery or be discovered.

[jpappl]

Peterscreek,

Logic does not dictate that one should follow the other. Even if a more advanced ET civilization exists...and even if they have some form of super advanced nano-technology...you do not know that the purported level of performance is even physically possible...or that it is even possible to get them here. With those to huge unknowns, it would seem that assigning a probability of "yes" is without a firm basis

That is why I put "could" in the sentence.

"they could have nano-scale probes"

I agree that just because they are more advanced doesn't mean they are not as far along in one area or the other. We could have super advanced ET societies that have no interest in space travel. Maybe they decided to devote all of their funding etc to improving the lives of those on their planet and tech is driven in the medical field. They may use nano-tech for that purpose.

[Garrison]

HenrikOlsen



That's reasonable. The only way to change the probable is to make the discovery or be discovered.

I don't think you are getting the basic point that as your idea is nothing more than a speculation based on a series of questionable assumptions it has no intrinsic merit that raises it above elves or invisible unicorns as a concept.

[jpappl]

Garrison,

I don't think you are getting the basic point that as your idea is nothing more than a speculation based on a series of questionable assumptions it has no intrinsic merit that raises it above elves or invisible unicorns as a concept.

I understand that it is speculation.

I completely disagree that invisible unicorns and elves has the same merit.

Considering that we are currently delving into and finding success in the nano-scale world, I just don't know how you can compare the two ideas. Other than just being stubborn.

Can you tell me of any research into invisible elves and unicorns that has any merit ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31665236...ce-innovation/

http://www.physorg.com/nanotech-news/

[HenrikOlsen]

You missed that part where I said the aliens aren't probable here. It doesn't matter if their accomplishments with nano-scale bots are two steps from getting them converted to grey goo, that is utterly insignificant compared to the problem of getting here in the first place.
First explore and explain the "here" question, then wander off into nano tech sci-fi land, which I incidentally don't see a point in at all as it won't work as an explanation for any of the yet unexplained reports I've seen, making it yet another unneeded hypothesis.

Why do you think it's even remotely likely they're here?

[Van Rijn]

Garrison,



I understand that it is speculation.

I completely disagree that invisible unicorns and elves has the same merit.

For what reason? What is the supporting evidence that differentiates one (aliens with nanoscale probes on Earth now) versus the other (invisible creatures on Earth now)?

I understand that you like one idea more than the other, but where's the evidence?

[jpappl]

Van Rijn,

For what reason? What is the supporting evidence that differentiates one (aliens with nanoscale probes on Earth now) versus the other (invisible creatures on Earth now)?

I understand that you like one idea more than the other, but where's the evidence?

This maybe where there is some confusion.

I am not an advocate of the idea that ET has nano-probes on earth now or ever. I am suggesting that IF there are advanced ET's out there, they could have such devices and could spy on us without making themselves known.

There is a difference between the statements.

One is a suggestion of the possibilities based on some of the technological advances we have made to date, and one is suggesting that it has happened.