Unexplained Mysteries... UFO encounters?

[brithlor]

Well, considering that we are the only "intellegent" beings that we know of... We can't really compare ourselves to other intellegent beings for similarities.

Maybe creatures that reach a point where they can use technology will always arise from creatures that dwelt in a certain manner... or alteast some of them.

Also, if we are to believe that there are aliens among us then it is possible that they had the same origins... whatever that may be.

It WOULD make sense that most beings from other planets would be very different than us... But if I were to see what those 62 school children allegedly saw, I wouldn't dismiss my sighting as a hoax just because they looked too human.

[AGN Fuel]

Well, considering that we are the only "intellegent" beings that we know of... We can't really compare ourselves to other intellegent beings for similarities.

Yes, although we can make some reasonably founded assumptions. A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example. An intelligent lifeform may reasonably be assumed to be dextrous and there are clear survival advantages to good eyesight (at whatever the appropriate wavelength), eyes well above the ground and so on, so forth. But as I pointed out before, a primary driver for evolution is the adaption to the environment in which the organism is evolving. Here on Earth, a 1g, liquid water, nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 atmosphere, 20C average temperature, has resulted in the evolution of countless unique species from the amoeba to humans to the giant sequoia. A planet with it's own unique conditions on which life has arisen will in all likelihood evolve it's own countless number of unique species and there is no overarching necessity that they resemble humankind in any way.

Also, if we are to believe that there are aliens among us then it is possible that they had the same origins... whatever that may be.

If they had the same origins, then they would also be human, no? Unless you are going way back down the evolutionary tree, talking some sort of panspermia, in which case they would have evolved according to the conditions on their own planet. Need a DNA swap to compare genetic makeup to see how far the species have diverged!

But if I were to see what those 62 school children allegedly saw, I wouldn't dismiss my sighting as a hoax just because they looked too human.

No, but you must be skeptical. Is there an alternative hypothesis to explain what these people allegedly saw? Are those hypotheses more or less likely than an alien visitation?

[Wally]

Also, why would it be so outrageous to think that aliens could be humaniod? Since we haven't found conclusive life outside of our planet, what makes us asume that life doesn't evolve similarly... ? I don't think we can know any of this for sure until find something. Who knows... maybe life can only exist on planets very similar to our own, which may create similiar creatures.

We humans have a terrible tendency to anthropomorphize everything. Why does the archetypal alien appear to have 2 eyes, 2 arms, 2 legs? Because we do. And we naively project our expectations of what an intelligent lifeform should look like - just like us but with a bulby head!

Given the likely vastly different conditions under which any potential life has arisen elsewhere in the cosmos, the chances of it looking like Leonard Nimoy but with pointy ears and 6 breasts is frankly remote.

But aren't there environmental factors that would tend to create certain features similiar to our own in an intelligent species? I'm thinking things like opposable thumbs, for instance; something that if we didn't have, we'd be unable to use tools or build anything. Bipedal locomotion. Binocular vision also seems a highly probable trait, as well as having sensory organs located in generally the same locale (i.e. ears on opposite sides of the head, etc).

[milli360]

A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example.

How do you know this?

Two examples in our own biota come to mind: giraffes and crocodiles. Do we have high surface gravity, or not?

[A.DIM]

But aren't there environmental factors that would tend to create certain features similiar to our own in an intelligent species? I'm thinking things like opposable thumbs, for instance; something that if we didn't have, we'd be unable to use tools or build anything. Bipedal locomotion. Binocular vision also seems a highly probable trait, as well as having sensory organs located in generally the same locale (i.e. ears on opposite sides of the head, etc).

Good points, Wally.

We discussed this issue some time ago & if I recall correctly it was deemed that beings like us aren't so improbable. Multiple eyes, ears, mouths, appendages... whatever.... would demand more energy and thusly would compromise the growth of the brain size. 2 eyes, 2 arms, 2 ears, 2 legs et al are the most efficient, biologically and evolutionally.

Then again, it seems we've all ignored the fact that Man was created "after their likeness, in their image." :wink:

[captain swoop]

We are only 'Bilateral' because of our evolutionary heritage, That was how our first common ancester evolved, theres nothing to say it had to be like that. Evolution works with what it's got, it doesn't plan.

[AGN Fuel]

A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example.

How do you know this?

I don't know and I never claimed I did - in fact if you read my post you will see that I very deliberately suggested that the assumptions were reasonably founded (not well) and that the species were likely to be short (not certain) - because of course there is a vast element of speculation in any discussion of alien physiology.

In fact, the point I have been trying to make throughout is that our single planet has produced a vast variety of species of differing appearances, from an amoeba to a sequoia. When Brithlor replied we couldn't compare ourselves to other intelligent species, this prompted my comment that we may be able to make some reasonable assumptions in order to promote further discussion of the issue. This point has been expanded subsequently by several other posters, noting the advantages of having sensory organs close to the brain to minimise response times, opposable digits, etc. These are not unreasonable assumptions to further discussion.

Two examples in our own biota come to mind: giraffes and crocodiles. Do we have high surface gravity, or not?

See my previous point - I strongly agree that the Earth is home to a vast array of differing species. But the giraffe and the crocodile (and the virus and the orangutan and the lesser spotted Warbler and the privet bush) have still evolved within the confines of their environment. Why aren't giraffes 50 metres tall instead of 5? If we suddenly tripled the surface gravity here on Earth, what impact would that have on the future evolutionary path of the giraffe?

I am happy to stand by my statement that a species that evolves on a high gravity planet is more likely to be short than tall. This is simply because it is a reasonable assumption that there are evolutionary advantages to be obtained from not having to support body mass high above the ground, pump blood (or ichor or whatever) to higher elevations etc etc, against a very strong force of gravity. But that certainly does not mean that such creatures cannot exist.

[milli360]

A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example.

How do you know this?

I don't know and I never claimed I did - in fact if you read my post you will see that I very deliberately suggested that the assumptions were reasonably founded (not well) and that the species were likely to be short (not certain) - because of course there is a vast element of speculation in any discussion of alien physiology.

If you lack evidence for something, I'd say that that it's reasonably probably not necessarily true.

I am happy to stand by my statement that a species that evolves on a high gravity planet is more likely to be short than tall. This is simply because it is a reasonable assumption that there are evolutionary advantages to be obtained from not having to support body mass high above the ground, pump blood (or ichor or whatever) to higher elevations etc etc, against a very strong force of gravity. But that certainly does not mean that such creatures cannot exist.

And, in fact, it seems they do.

[Wally]

We are only 'Bilateral' because of our evolutionary heritage, That was how our first common ancester evolved, theres nothing to say it had to be like that. Evolution works with what it's got, it doesn't plan.

Nothing? Natural selection comes to mind. I don't think we (and all other 4 limbed animals) turned out this way by chance.

[captain swoop]

We are only 'Bilateral' because of our evolutionary heritage, That was how our first common ancester evolved, theres nothing to say it had to be like that. Evolution works with what it's got, it doesn't plan.

Nothing? Natural selection comes to mind. I don't think we (and all other 4 limbed animals) turned out this way by chance.

What if a trilateral plan had been selected for? I can think of no reason that it wouldn't be just as viable.

[Gullible Jones]

You ever heard of xenophyophores? They're massive protozoans that live on the sea floor. Yeah, single-celled. And when I say massive, I mean it - some are 10 centimeters long, which, compared to other unicellular organisms, is ungodly huge. (They get around the surface/volume problem by having tons of wrinkles and pores in their membranes, IIRC.) Weird, huh?

Wonder why I'm bringing these critters into the thread? Because they evolved on the same planet as us. They are not aliens; they are natives of Earth that evolved under conditions very different from the ones we live in.

Now imagine what a creature from another planet, with totally different environments, might be like. It might have evolved differently from us, not in recent evolutionary history, but when life began on the planet. Its genetic code might be stored in a medium other than DNA/RNA. Its amino acids might be the mirror images of the ones in our bodies. Its cell membranes might have a different composition from ours; it might not even have cell membranes at all. It might not even be organic.

I have no way of knowing what the first sentient aliens we meet will be like, if we ever meet any. But I can say one thing: the chances are overwhelmingly high that, from our point of view, they will be unbelievably bizarre.

[Planetside]

None of the debunkers will ever concede these children saw aliens.

They will say either it's natural or "unknown".

Really were wasting our time on this topic. It wont be agree'd on in here.

Arguing about weather aliens would resemble us is funny. The only way to know that, is if you knew the environment in which the other life-form was created. If you can't prove there are aliens, then you can't claim to know what they would look like.

In the end it comes down to this.

The believers will believe.

The skeptics will be skeptical.

The debunkers will debunk.

[freddo]

... And the evidence will elude us all.

[Gullible Jones]

No, the skeptics and the debunkers will laugh. Loudly.

[brithlor]

Well, I'm not about to call myself a "believer" or a "debunker", but if there is proof of alien existance... even if it is not beyond all shadow of a doubt then I would DEFINITELY not dismiss it just because there is no hard evidence. On the other hand I wouldn't bet my life on it... or pursue more information on it had a more conclusive discovery been made.

I'm not about to assume one way or the other about what these children in Africa saw. But dismissing it entirely seems a bit too hasty. Unforunetly it doesn't seem like we will get any new information on this alleged sighting, so we will either have to remain skeptical... with an open mind that it COULD have happened... or we will have to dismiss it entirely.

BTW, Planetside mentioned earlier in this post about someone claiming that "most aliens are humaniod" can you elaborate on your sources... and What they claim?

[Gullible Jones]

Some former army officer. If he did indeed exist, and actually said that, then his "former" position is for rather obvious reasons...

[Planetside]

Well, I'm not about to call myself a "believer" or a "debunker", but if there is proof of alien existance... even if it is not beyond all shadow of a doubt then I would DEFINITELY not dismiss it just because there is no hard evidence. On the other hand I wouldn't bet my life on it... or pursue more information on it had a more conclusive discovery been made.

I'm not about to assume one way or the other about what these children in Africa saw. But dismissing it entirely seems a bit too hasty. Unforunetly it doesn't seem like we will get any new information on this alleged sighting, so we will either have to remain skeptical... with an open mind that it COULD have happened... or we will have to dismiss it entirely.

BTW, Planetside mentioned earlier in this post about someone claiming that "most aliens are humaniod" can you elaborate on your sources... and What they claim?

Yes I can :-)

The guys name is Clifford Stone and he's with the Disclosure Project.

http://www.disclosureproject.com

To get his testimony you need to watch this movie: http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

And he does not talk about the aliens directly untill a reporter at the end asks him futher info. The press conference is interesting because I think about 30 witnesses describe what I think is the current reality involving aliens.

[AGN Fuel]

A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example.

How do you know this?

I don't know and I never claimed I did - in fact if you read my post you will see that I very deliberately suggested that the assumptions were reasonably founded (not well) and that the species were likely to be short (not certain) - because of course there is a vast element of speculation in any discussion of alien physiology.

If you lack evidence for something, I'd say that that it's reasonably probably not necessarily true.

So you criticise me stating that I know something, and when I point out that I had in fact included broad disclaimers, you criticise me for waffling? :-s

I must have missed the bit in the FAQ that stated that reasoned speculation on a scientific discussion board in the absence of hard, irrefutable evidence was a hanging offence. :roll:

[Archer17]

The disclosure project is not worthy of caps Planetside .. you only believe half of what's out there .. the "aliens are here" half. Keep trying.. :wink:

[Wolverine]

The disclosure project is not worthy of caps Planetside ..

Besides, we've already been there and done that.

Perhaps we'll all be in agreement when there's a thorough presentation of evidence rather than anecdote.

[milli360]

A species that evolves on a planet with a high surface gravity is more likely to be short & squat rather than tall & willowy, for example.

How do you know this?

I don't know and I never claimed I did - in fact if you read my post you will see that I very deliberately suggested that the assumptions were reasonably founded (not well) and that the species were likely to be short (not certain) - because of course there is a vast element of speculation in any discussion of alien physiology.

If you lack evidence for something, I'd say that that it's reasonably probably not necessarily true.

So you criticise me stating that I know something, and when I point out that I had in fact included broad disclaimers, you criticise me for waffling?

No, not for waffling. For asserting something that has no evidence to back it up. I would have made no objection if we pursued the possibility of short squat aliens, or tall willowy aliens, or anything inbetween. I just would like to see the evidence for one or the other being preferred. That's my goal.

I must have missed the bit in the FAQ that stated that reasoned speculation on a scientific discussion board in the absence of hard, irrefutable evidence was a hanging offence.

OK, I've put away the rope. It probably wasn't strong enough anyway...

[brithlor]

I wish I could fast forward that video :-/

[brithlor]

BTW:

Planetside... I have a request for you, since you are a self-proclaimed "woo-woo".

Would you direct me to a place that has the first videos and pictures of UFOs? I'm talking about the ones that started the UFO phenomena...

Thanks :-D.

[AGN Fuel]

No, not for waffling. For asserting something that has no evidence to back it up. I would have made no objection if we pursued the possibility of short squat aliens, or tall willowy aliens, or anything inbetween. I just would like to see the evidence for one or the other being preferred. That's my goal.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Firstly, I did not assert anything. To assert means to declare as true, and I have already explained that my comments were speculative. Secondly, reasoned speculation on a discussion board is surely it's entire raison d'etre - to bounce ideas around for general discussion and expansion/refutation. If the only discussions permitted are those for which solid, indeniable evidence is in place, then frankly this board will become mind-numbingly dull.

For the record and in case there is any confusion, I harbour absolutely no illusions (delusions?) that aliens are flying over the US countryside, performing exploratory surgery, mutilating cows and designing Rorschach tests in wheat fields. I make this comment on the basis of the distances involved in interstellar space, the energy constraints to cover such distances, the purpose/s of such a visit, the anthropomorphing of all 'sightings' from physical appearance to behaviours to technology. Finally, the buffoonish nature of a species capable of flipping across the voids of space and yet unable to escape detection by schoolkids and drunken tourists with Handycams, etc does not seem consistent. (Uh-oh, more reasoned speculation! [-X )

Is there life elsewhere in space? No-one knows - there is no evidence for it, although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this does not prevent me or anyone else from contemplating on what life may look like given our current understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, if it arises in an alien environment.

OK, I've put away the rope. It probably wasn't strong enough anyway...

If it's as strong as your objection, I'm inclined to agree. :wink:

[Planetside]

Perhaps no one noticed but I was responding to Birthlor.

[Wolverine]

Perhaps no one noticed but I was responding to Birthlor.

Well, this is a public message board, and if you state things people take issue with, your comments will be addressed. If you don't wish for your comments to be addressed, you could always send a private message instead.

[Planetside]

BTW:

Planetside... I have a request for you, since you are a self-proclaimed "woo-woo".

Would you direct me to a place that has the first videos and pictures of UFOs? I'm talking about the ones that started the UFO phenomena...

Thanks :-D.

To answer your question: I have no idea. I suppose drawings from ancient times have showed large crowds seeing a UFO in the sky. Long before we could fly. As to what started the UFO phenom.. I'm not sure.

[Archer17]

Perhaps no one noticed but I was responding to Birthlor.

You posted on the board Planetside. If you want one-on-one conversations .. use the PM option.

[Planetside]

Perhaps no one noticed but I was responding to Birthlor.

Well, this is a public message board, and if you state things people take issue with, your comments will be addressed. If you don't wish for your comments to be addressed, you could always send a private message instead.

He asked me a question in public, so I responded in public. This is his thread and I don't really want to get into a fit with a debunker about "proving aliens exist".

So anyways.. Pistons will win it all in game 6. =D> =D>

[Archer17]

We think alike Wolverine 8) Planetside: no one "owns" threads here.