UFO phenomena: the first logical explanation?

[Teemu L]

In a nutshell: could the "real", physical UFOs - if there are any - be von Neumann probes? Probes that are sent throughout our galaxy to protect their masters against hostile civilizations?

Let me explain.

First, von Neumann probe means a self-replicating robotic spacecraft in case you didn't know.

Then back to my idea. There might be or have been several technological civilizations in our galaxy - some estimate there are 10000 at any given moment.

Some of those civilizations have possibly survived long enough to reach a technological level sufficient to build a von Neumann probe.

When they have realized a concept of von Neumann probe, they have simultaneously realized that if only one civilization builds a von Neumann probe and equips it with weapons, that civilization will rule the galaxy as it likes. That is simply because the power of von Neumann probe army increases exponentially - something that stationary defense system hardly can match, no matter how sophisticated it is.

Let's take an imaginary example civilization that is relatively peaceful. After realizing things said above, our example civilization has two options: to just wait and see if hostile von Neumann probes appear some day, or to build what I believe is only effective defense system against exponentially growing enemy - another von Neumann probe. The one that is programmed to spread all over the galaxy and "stamp out" aggressive and hostile von Neumann probe infections before they run out of control.

It is not self-evident that they will just wait and see. After all, what proof we (they) have that somewhere in our galaxy there are't a creatures like Hitler, Stalin or bin Laden with a capacity to launch an aggressive von Neumann probe to do things it considers to be just and meaningful? And I doubt humans are the most aggressive race out there: after all, we are not even inherited from real predators, like sharks or crocodiles.

So could there be one or more of these defensive von Neumann probe "families" in our solar system, looking for signs of any hostile von Neumann probe? They certainly would have had enough time to arrive. It has been theorized that a self-replicating starship utilizing relatively conventional theoretical methods of interstellar travel resulting to an average cruising speed of 10% of speed of light could spread throughout a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in as little as half a million years.

If they are here what are they doing? Possibly interfering with our life as little as possible but simultaneously looking for signs of another von Neumann probes, either probes built by local civilization (=human race) or probes arrived from elsewhere and started reproduction here.

If they are here and consider human race a possible near-future source of von Neumann probes it might explain why the modern UFO phenomenon started during WWII. During WWII human race developed space-faring capacity (German V-2 rockets) and nuclear power, required for nuclear pulse propulsion. Also, it might be possible the probes noticed our WWII breakthrough in computer science, possibly by listening our crypted and decrypted radio signals. Thus, the probes changed our status from "primitive technological civilization" to "rapidly developing space-faring civilization" and started intensified reconnaissance in order to determine whether we are building our own von Neumann probe.

That's it. The whole "thought experiment" is of course highly speculative, but please tell me what you think about it. Is there any logical fallacies I didn't notice or something that is clearly incompatible with our current understanding of science and technology?


APPENDIX

I tried to keep my main idea as short as possible for not to scare readers away. If you still have an energy and interest to read about this topic I will try to further clarify some of my points.

I'm not trying to use my idea to prove the "real" UFOs exist. That would be silly. Neither I'm a UFO believer: the evidence so far doesn't convince me were have been visited by artificial extraterrestial crafts, even though some cases are very interesting. But my point is that maybe scientific community as a whole shouldn't judge the alleged UFO phenomena outright ridiculous and impossible. If there isn't any obvious impossibilities in my thought experiment it could be one possible starting point to explain the most curious cases and aspects of the UFO phenomena. At least my idea would more or less explain how UFO's could travel such a long distances and why they would bother. Also it would explain the statistical improbability that several UFOs would visit the Earth during a short period. And it would explain why they seem to be just buzzing around, apparently without any sensible purpose. All these questions have been repeatedly used as a proof why there couldn't be alien spaceships near the Earth at this very moment. Plus: it could explain the sudden start of UFO sightings at 40's.

I would like to add there is also a possibility that "police probes" would be sophisticated enough monitor us effectively without ever revealing themselves. In that case we could forget the UFO phenomena connection.

I assume that if my idea will generate some discussion the most popular objection will be something like "but advanced civilization can't be hostile, otherwise it would have nuked itself away, so there's no need for any kind of 'police probes'". I can agree to that to some extent. Sure, if a civilization is aggressive it is reasonable to believe it is in greater danger to destroy itself before developing technology needed for advanced self-replication and interstellar probes. But can we rule out the possibility there could be a sentient, intelligent race that is simultaneously both highly social and highly aggressive. They would be always ready to sacrifice themselves for the cause of their tribe, never violent towards one of their own but always hostile towards others. In fact, their feelings towards other creatures than members of their tribe could be as warm as what we feel towards spiders. So, this race would be like an advanced version of anthill. Or the Japanese in WWII.

It might be rather unpleasant emotionally if we could really prove there are von Neumann probes in our solar system. Of course there is ever-present fear towards something new - it's not pleasant to change a way we perceive the world. And many people would be nervous about motives of "intruders". Also, we wouldn't be the crown jewels of the nature anymore, not even in our own domain. It also might prove the modern scientific community could be fooled for decades (if there is an UFO sightings connection). And as an ultimate insult, they wouldn't even seem to bother to come to "shake hands" with us - almost like they were treating us like a children. However, I believe people would soon get used with the idea and there would be many positive psychological effects as well. (Addition 31. May -09: I might have been too optimistic about consequences, please read this and this post as well)

As far as I know this is the first time anyone proposes that there is an interstellar self-replicator arms race going on and UFO phenomena are a side product of it - correct me if I'm wrong. The idea of interstellar self-replicator arms race, or "police probe" scenario isn't entirely novel: as far as I know, it was introduced first time last year (2008) by futurologist Anders Sandberg on this posting.


After reading Mr Sandberg's posting I felt rather depressed, since it felt like all that was original in my idea was took away from me before I had a chance to publish it. But then I understood something crucial was missing: it seems Mr Sandberg have never tried to connect his insight to the UFO phenomena. So as I felt there might be still something original and valuable in my ideas, I rushed a half-ready website to the Internet. And there it still stands:

http://vonneumann.tripod.com/

There are lots of misspelled and missing words and sentences, sometimes even paragraphs. The looks of the site is hideous and there are cheap ads placed everywhere by the hosting service (I'd like to point out I don’t earn a single penny from those ads, everything goes to host). However, the text should be somewhat readable and understandable. I should have fixed it all but after initial upload never found time or energy.

So, I'm very happy if someone made it all the way here. I would like to very much hear your comments. But one wish if you may: even though this is very controversial subject let's try to keep the discussion boringly calm, shall we?

Insults, arrogant remarks and ad hominem arguments can't prove any idea or hypothesis wrong. My opinion is that they usually just indicate one is afraid their world view is somehow threatened. But I'm glad to notice the tone of discussions on this forum seems to be mostly polite and civilized.

[eburacum45]

Anders Sandberg certainly didn't originate the 'police probe' concept; it has existed for a long time in fiction - one notable example is Greg Bear's 'Ships of the Law' in his short series The Forge of God/Anvil of Star from 1987-1992. The idea of policing against rogue replicators is also inherent in the even earlier Saberhagen Berserker stories. But it is interesting that George Dvorsky thinks that police replicators should be called 'Sandberg Probes'.

UFOs could be some sort of self-replicating phenomenon; that might explain why they are not interested in contacting us - a self-replicating phenomenon does not need to be intelligent, only competent. Swarms of locusts do not have anything very interesting to say. It would also explain why they fly around with their lights on - they are too stupid to realise that they can be seen.

But I honestly don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that UFOs represent a real phenomenon- for instance, they seem to be more easily detected using primitive 1950's radar technology than today's sophisticated phased-array systems. This inverse visibility suggests that they are an artifact of observation, rather than a real example of self-replicating probes.

[Teemu L]

Great, at least the first answer wasn't "are you completely insane?".

Thanks for the information about origin of "police probe" term. Maybe I should read those books. I wonder if the difference between idea of Sandberg's and those earlier writers could be Sandberg suggests police probes could be sent as an pre-emptive measure - even without knowledge whether there are any berserkers flying around.

I totally agree there isn't enough evidence to suggest that UFOs represent a real (extraterrestial) phenomenon. That's why I think it's a bit sad there are only couple of efforts by brave individuals to try to study the the phenomenon experimentally. For example with automated detection devices. Instead of just interviewing people who has told they saw something. Should we try to detect fairies too? No, I don't think so because there seems to be no theoretical bases to believe in fairies. But I think "real" UFOs are something that in theory could exists.

[Buckwild]

But I honestly don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that UFOs represent a real phenomenon- for instance, they seem to be more easily detected using primitive 1950's radar technology than today's sophisticated phased-array systems. This inverse visibility suggests that they are an artifact of observation, rather than a real example of self-replicating probes.

Hi there, (pls excuse my english)

I am interested by your comments.

1 : Are up-to-date phased-array systems subject to artifacts ?

2 : Are up-to-date phased-array systems able to cancel artifacts using some kind of "ghost" cancellation software or else (filter(s) ) ?

Cheers,
Buck

[Buckwild]

This is what I think. (pls excuse my english once more as it isn't my first language)

Most (real) researchers => (I didn't say ufologists) engaged ETI detection initiatives using SETI. What about our own s-system (or even < 1 AU) ?

Ufology is a non-sense since it is NOT a science, not "even" an investigative science.

There are ways (protocols (?) & methods & technology) to engage serious ETI detection within our own s-system and even here within our own atmosphere & terrestrial orbit.

Who does it ? Nobody yet as far as I know.

But some people are thinking about it...

I could name Masimmo Teodorani from the ICPH-CIPH & researcher for the Radiotelescope of Medicina - CNR/Institut de Radio-Astronomie (IRA) in Bologne (Italy) : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001ESASP.496..413T

And also :

Scot Stride
Bruce Cornet

I do know quiet a few other people but these are the most important ones as far as I know.

1. Stride, Scot L., "An Instrument-Based Method to Search for Extraterrestrial Interstellar Robotic Probes," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 54(1/2), 2-13, 2001.

Abstract: Technological advancements have allowed us to build robotic space probes to remotely explore the solar system. Interstellar robotic missions are under serious consideration. Advanced extant extraterrestrial civilizations within the galaxy, if they exist, are very likely exploring with robotic probes as well, some of which may have reached our solar system and taken an interest in life on Earth. Recent technological advances make it possible to conduct a scientific search for evidence of extraterrestrial interstellar robotic probes. Modern solid-state sensing devices and scientific instruments, combined with high-speed computer hardware, can be used in an effort to detect the physical presence of a probe. The SETV (Search for Extraterrestrial Visitation) model is new and an offspring of SETA (artifacts) and SETI. SETV includes the construction of passive autonomous data acquisition platforms using "commercial off-the-shelf" hardware, to collect reliable and unambiguous data on anomalous observational phenomena that may be ETI probes. The SETV hypothesis and experimental methods will be described. The SETV hypothesis can be experimentally tested and attempts to statistically reject a null hypothesis which states that ETI probes do not exist. SETV Pre and Post-detection protocols are necessary and will be examined. SETV is a timely, results-oriented, method worthy of serious consideration in our continuing desire to answer the question "Are we alone?"

2. Stride, Scot L., "Instrument Technologies for the Detection of Extraterrestrial Interstellar Robotic Probes," SPIE Proceedings on Optical SETI-III, Vol. 4273, San Jose, California, 2001.

Abstract: In the continuing endeavor to detect evidence of ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) in the solar neighborhood, instrument technologies now exist that allow the formation of a scientific method to carry out a search for interstellar robotic probes of possible extraterrestrial origin. The range of currently observable probe features/manifestations will be shown and how they influence search space, instrument selection and deployment. Autonomous instrument platforms (i.e. robotic observatories) to search for anomalous energy signatures can be designed and assembled using Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and software. The COTS approach to observatory design provides an economical, flexible and robust path toward collecting reliable data. The present variety of COTS instruments permits the necessary observational sensitivity, bandwidth and embedded processing speed to establish a nearby robotic probe detection envelope. A survey of these instrument technologies will be presented and how they can be applied to the challenge of collecting enough scientific data on anomalous observational phenomena to determine whether or not a robotic probe was detected.

3. Cornet, Bruce and Stride, Scot L., "Solar System SETI Using Radio Telescope Arrays," Proceedings of SETICon 03, The Third SETI League Technical Symposium, The College of New Jersey, Ewing New Jersey, April 25-27, 2003.

Abstract: The search for extraterrestrial intelligence must include complementary observing programs that investigate our solar system and near Earth. Solar system observing strategies involve a search for energy (e.g., artificial microwaves) or physical manifestations (e.g., exploratory robotic probes) that may be present. Artificial electromagnetic emissions from robotic probes may be detectable using existing ground-based radio-telescope observatories like Arecibo, or those undergoing construction such as the Allen Telescope Array (ATA). Future systems like the SETI League's Array2k and the SETI Institute's ATA are well suited to the task of searching the solar system for anomalous microwave phenomena. Steerable phased arrays have the unique ability to produce multiple beams, and shaped antenna patterns to target and track specific planet-moon systems or regions of deep space. At distances less than 50 AU, large SETI arrays can detect electromagnetic emissions much fainter than those from light years away. Lower free space attenuation (i.e., higher signal-to-noise ratios), a reduced amount of scintillation from the interstellar medium, and other factors improve system performance. Solar System SETI is a search for active exploratory robotic probes within the solar system. These probes can possibly be discovered if they emit secondary or leakage microwave energy. The radial velocity, range and location of these emissions can be estimated from analysis of measured one-way doppler drifts and data from a synthesized quad-beam monopulse antenna array configuration.

Here is one publication (by Scot Stride) :

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/01-0096.pdf


Did they start yet ? I really don't know
Did they submit their methods & protocols to peer review ? I really don't know

My point is that looking for ETI manifestations could be very complicated if the ETI implicated is a type I,II,III in the Kardashev scale (to use a referential). It could even be impossible with our latest technology to detect "them" imo. I could be wrong, I could be right.

But, shouldn't we give it a try ? (I am asking you)

Now, I often hear, why isn't there some good ufo footage ?

a : What does good stands for (eligibility criterions) ?
b : What does UFO stands for (eligibility criterions) ?

Let's try to define these criterions, shall we ?

Once done, I might have something that could maybe fit the description(s)...

NB : if so, I'll open a thread with a link in this thread


Cheers,
Buck

[R.A.F.]

...looking for ETI manifestations could be very complicated if the ETI implicated is a type I,II,III in the Kardashev scale (to use a referential). It could even be impossible with our latest technology to detect "them" imo.

The difficulty with that, is that it attributes "qualities" to an unproven alien "agency". without any supportive evidence. "Magical aliens that can do anything" might seem feasable, but it's only a "cop-out" for no evidence.

...and for that matter, if they are impossible to detect, then (to me, at least) they are the same as non-existent.

[Buckwild]

The difficulty with that, is that it attributes "qualities" to an unproven alien "agency". without any supportive evidence. "Magical aliens that can do anything" might seem feasable, but it's only a "cop-out" for no evidence.

...and for that matter, if they are impossible to detect, then (to me, at least) they are the same as non-existent.

Hi R.A.F,

It could be a "cop out" for people supporting the ETH if I undestood your point and I agree.

Funny you used the word "magical" because it is one of Clarcke's three laws :

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Carl Sagan calculated humanity's civilization type to be 0.7, in relationship to Kardashev's model for Types 0 and I.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

If some remote tribe in South America saw our technology, they would probably think it is magical and they are a type O(.?) "civilization" as well.

This word (magical) does not even need to be in italic imo and two civilizations of the same type could have huge gaps in their technology advancement.

Now, since you are the only person that responded to my message so far, could you please answer my question from my last message :

But, shouldn't we give it a try ? (searching for ETI within our own solar system)

Cheers,
Buck

[Bynaus]

This is a very nice idea, and its presented convincingly. I may think about describing the idea on my own page, with due credit of course.

But I also have something to add. An important question is: How to recognize hostile von-Neumanns (vN)? Say a civilization launches a defensive vN: what should this probe actually look for? There may be a few hostile vN destroying everything that comes in their way, so these may be easy to recognize, pick out and destroy, but some hostile vN may be more patient, pretending to be peacefull at first and then suddenly striking unprepared enemy vN (at least, there is an "ecologic niche" for hostile-but-patient vN in such a universe). Should the defensive vN simply try to match any military power other vN probes have established in any system throughout the galaxy, just in case one of the other vN populations (vN population = all the vN probes from one civilization) turns hostile? This could easily lead to a runaway arms race that could transform entire star systems into military installations and hardware.

I'd propose that the more logical aproach would be for different vN populations to have an (possibly informal) agreement: any attack on any vN probe or military installation / hardware is imediately retaliated by a spontaneous coalition of all the other (defensive) vN populations, and any massive buildup of military installations and hardware beyond the point of vN self-defense is prohibited and considered an "attack". This policy would leave starsystems virtually untouched and keep actual vN numbers low. A "coalition" of different vN populations following this policy could quickly stabilize the whole system: vN populations that do not "help" in the effort to keep hostile vN at bay are not helped in return when attacked and are therefore quickly eliminated. Coalitions of hostile vN are, I think, unlikely, and if there are more than only a very few vN population, no coalition of hostile vN could ever have a chance to overturn the ruling system.

Second point I wanted to make, a galaxy-wide system of vN also helps to prevent any replicator-catastrophe that may arise from "rogue" vN that are out of control and have started to transform everything they encounter in copies of itself. In that case, the informal coalition of defensive vN will have a strong interest to act as a galacitc "imune system" fighting "cancer" cells. Even if a newcomer-civiliziation building its first vN does not expect any hostile vN, malfunctioning vN are always a possibility. It would then be of very high interest for every civilization to survey any deposit of tranformable material in the galaxy (or, in the long run, the universe...) to make sure no runaway vN is given the chance to destroy the entire universe.

[Teemu L]

Thanks for your kind words Bynaus. Of course you can write about this elsewhere.

Your points were relevant, especially concerning the problem of "cheating" probes. On my site I wrote a few words about it. These are example of instructions for a police probe:

When you encounter unknown spacecraft try to communicate with it at least via radio and visually.

(Read more about artificial, mathematical language Lincos)

If it fails to communicate with you start to follow it. If it does something that is morally inacceptable (for example mining a habitated planet) try to quarantine it. If that fails use any means necessary to stop it.

If communication is established tell it your mission and ethic principles and listen what it has to say about it's own. If your princinples differ try to negotiate with it the way you are programmed to. If you can reach consensus the matter is settled . If it turns out that the spacecraft is working under clearly immoral principles, propose that you both retreat, declare war and tell others about it. After that you and your sister probes are enemies with the newly encountered type of spacecrafts.

After you have sufficient information about the new spaceship share the information that you have gathered with your sister probes and other probes you consider trustworthy.

However, be aware that some probes might try to cheat you and work under different principles that it announced to you. If this is detected, take appropriate measures depending the severity of a breach.

I'd like to add it would be a good idea for probes to travel in "flocks" that consists of members of several probe families. Therefore a possible sneak attack or other cheat would be detected easier and probe families could share the information about culprit. Then the rules of mutual help you proposed would take place.

It's also good you mentioned malfunctioning probes, I forgot them on my first posting.

[eburacum45]

...malfunctioning vN are always a possibility.

But careful engineering could make them fail-safe - that is to say, if they malfunction, they cease to operate altogether. If a probe follows its design parameters, it will function- if not, it dies, or at least becomes dormant until someone can fix it. Mutation and evolution could be engineered out of such devices. The trouble is, you have to be very careful how you build and program them in the first place in order to achieve such a result.

[Teemu L]

I also believe it would be possible to build a fail-safe model. If each probe carries several copies of blueprints and compares them during construction, there is a diminishingly small change that descendants of it will be mutated. Of course there still is a change that each set of blueprints gets corrupted simultaneously, exactly similar way but the change is so low we can be pretty sure it can't happen during the life span of the universe. Of course there could be a especially dumb species that after a millions of years of development can launch some kind of rag-tag probe - without even thinking about possibility of evolution.

Bynaus, I still thought about your remark about runaway arms race and how to avoid it. It isn't a trivial question. I assume each probe family would have rules how much they will consume the material of each star system - and how much they will allow others to consume. It's a bit tricky as each probe family will have different rules about this. All they can do is to negotiate about shares and try to find compromises and contracts. Of course if one family uses all the resources it is able to find and won't negotiate about the matter, it will give that family advantage over others and can also harm life of nearby civilizations. I think it's likely others will eventually declare war to such probe family.

By the way: I would love to know if these following two stories are only myths or do the original sources really exist? If they exist, what it could have been? It was middle ages, after all, and people didn't have particulary scientific attitude but still these sounds quite extraordinary to even those times.
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/1561.htm
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/1566.htm

Of course it could have been goverment testing experimental aircrafts. :P

[cjameshuff]

But careful engineering could make them fail-safe - that is to say, if they malfunction, they cease to operate altogether. If a probe follows its design parameters, it will function- if not, it dies, or at least becomes dormant until someone can fix it. Mutation and evolution could be engineered out of such devices. The trouble is, you have to be very careful how you build and program them in the first place in order to achieve such a result.

And they won't necessarily pass on acquired imperfections. Maybe there's a glitch in construction and one ends up with twice as many fuel tank modules, or a component is misaligned...since it's running the same reproduction program, if it remains functional, its descendants will be built to the correct design.

This truly can be done so reliably that it is unlikely for an inheritable mutation to happen even once in trillions of reproductive cycles. High reliability, high-stability memory technologies...something like laser-cut foils, for one possible example...and massive application of redundancy and error detection/correction techniques. And if you're going to manufacture self-replicating probes and deploy them across the galaxy, you're probably going to employ these techniques.

But yes, I also doubt that there's anything that needs to be explained about UFOs. In addition, actively seeking contact or information on a planet seems hazardous and resource intensive, as well as extremely complicated. It would seem more efficient to wait in space for them to find you, reproducing as needed to replace occasional losses due to damage or malfunction, but generally remaining dormant in an orbit that'll remain stable for extremely long periods of time and be of interest to any space-faring civilizations that arise...trojan points with a large gas giant are one possibility that comes to mind. They might use surface materials with unusual spectra to attract attention...a copper clad outer hull, or a thick layer of titanium dioxide (high albedo) or zinc sulfide (phosphorescent and easily doped to produce very identifiable spectra) paint.

[gzhpcu]

The futurologist Ray Kurzweil has brought up the idea of space exploration via Von Neuman probes being created by synthetic beings (artificial intelligence) which take over from us.

Also from Wikipedia:

Similar to a von Neumann probe, the only intelligent beings capable of traveling the huge distances of space are synthetic and self replicating life forms. These life forms are not single probes, but groups of life forms who are teaming together to achieve their goals in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-re...ing_spacecraft

[eburacum45]

Concerning the first image, from Nurenberg, I think I have an answer;
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/1561.htm
this seems to depict a particularly spectacular display of parhelia.
Take a look at this display from Sutton Coldfield in England (roughly at the same latitude as Nurenberg)
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/mdisp5.htm
The double circumsolar arcs look particularly reminiscent of the old woodcut, in my opinion. Other elements in the image are crosses and groups of coloured spots; both can be explained in terms of parhelia, as sundogs and intersections between parhelic circles and circumsolar arcs, for instance.

Since such spectacular displays are rare at these latitudes, they might have been considered worth recording; unfortunately the woodcut artist either wasn't very good, or was simply following a verbal description, or was following medieval artistic conventions rather than giving a true account.

[Bynaus]

Another thing came to my mind when thinking about this thread...

If a civilization considers itself the first civilization in the galaxy, it could also try to give its vN probes one single rule on the way: Destroy any spacebased replicators you encounter, by all means nescessary. This would ensure the Species' eternal control over the galaxy it lives in, as no new upcoming civilization building replicators can ever hope to be able to battle wave after wave of reinforcements sent from millions of nearby star systems.

On the other hand, this scenario fails if the replication cycle is very slow, in a way that a local species could develop a faster one - in the long run, it could then outdo the galaxywide vN network. This again could drive a species to develop very fast replication cycles, or to adopt the aforementioned policy to: Destroy all spacebased replicators with a shorter replication cycle than your own (and it would be best to do the same with the civilization that built it).

[eburacum45]

So the civilisation which built the replicators becomes more advanced, and sends out a second wave of replicators with a shorter reproduction cycle; do the first wave then battle the second wave for dominace over the galaxy? Or does the second wave have a special 'over-ride' signal that allows the first wave to tell friend from foe?

That means that the 'over-ride' signal could be stolen by other races, and use it to protect their own replicators.

A lot of interesting possibilities here...

[Teemu L]

But yes, I also doubt that there's anything that needs to be explained about UFOs. In addition, actively seeking contact or information on a planet seems hazardous and resource intensive, as well as extremely complicated.

I must partially disagree. First, for me some of the alleged UFO cases are too strange to just forget. For example this article about Green fireballs (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs), which links to some original sources.

Second, if the police probes exist they could function as you propose - just keeping the distance to planets and moons and waiting for replicators. But isn't there a risk some hostile probes could always secretly penetrate their embargo? Therefore it would be more safe to track possible manufacturing facilities on planets/moons/asteroids. The resources are not a problem: I remember Robert Freitas calculated that to colonize our entire galaxy with probes would require a mass equilevant to biggest of the asteroid, Ceres.

And let's not forget the clouds. I assume it's impossible to monitor through cloud layer. Some planets might even be like London: they are always fully covered with clouds.

The funny thing is that police probes would probably have to monitor underwater activity too. Because can we rule out the possibility that probes could be manufactured in the bottom of the ocean? At least there are sources of energy and raw materials. If the probe is developed by a civilization living underwater I assume they could pretty easily use their knowledge to make a probe capable of that.

Which reminds me about this article on Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda:
w ww.kp.ru/daily/23726/54249/

Here is a Google translated version:
translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=fi&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kp.ru%2 Fdaily%2F23726%2F54249%2F&sl=ru&tl=en&swap=1

Now that is a strange "frog"! Let's try to find a mundane explanation. I can imagine at least these options:

a) It really was an unknown animal. But what animal can 2- or 3- fold outrun the speed of Russian military submarine? And why the species so suddenly appeared and disappeared?

b) The newspaper are lying cold-bloodedly. Some of them do that, some of them don't. I now KP is the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia but nothing else. If any Russian reads this could you say anything about the reliability of the newspaper?

c) Several high-ranking officers, including the last head of USSR Navy have mutually decided to make up this story. Sounds strange somehow. Aren't they afraid they will be considered maniacs? Haven't they got conscience? Is it all worth of some interviews?

d) It was a secret American weapon. But why they revealed it with "quack" sounds? And why the phenomenon appeared and disappeared such way? And how the heck Americans managed to make it travel so fast underwater?

Confusing but fascinating.

And take a look of these two sounds, both recorded 1997:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Down_(unidentified_sound)

Of course it could be that somebody (like Russians) was just toying around with Americans, but why would have they bothered? Or maybe it really was a extremely huge unknown animal but it's odd we don't hear it's sounds more often, not mentioning meet it dead or alive.

eburacum45, that parhelia looks pretty scary. I didn't even know such a phenomenon exists. Could that have been what happened? Maybe. But on the other hand, text mentions moving objects and even some crashes (although it's hard to say about reliability of source). I guess we can never be sure what happened..

[Jason_Roberts]

I've been following this thread silently for a couple of days, and just wanted to comment on the examples of UFO phenomena brought up just now.

In particular a lot of these sources seem to imply that because certain observers were trained pilots or experienced members of the military that their findings carry more weight than that of the average person in regard to UFOs. I've found that everyone is equally fallible when it comes to identifying something strange in the sky (or hearing something in the ocean.) This is true whether a person is a pilot, policeman, submarine captain or whatever.

I'm not sure if any of these folks have the sort of tools and scientific knowledge required to adequately analyze these events. And this isn't to mention that they happen very quickly and don't permit a whole lot of room for exhaustive observation. Everything is very ephemeral.

I also wanted to voice my own opinion of Pravda as a very unreliable and sensationalist media outlet. Don't forget that these are the same guys who regularly feature Richard C. Hoagland and his various conspiracy theories as actual news. Because of things like this, I'm very reluctant to take anything that they feature very seriously.

In a sense, I felt the need to say something as I have the apprehension that this thread has just taken a turn for the worst and I very much hope that I am wrong. Things have been going very well in here, and the ideas presented are very sound.

[Teemu L]

Jason, thank you for your information about Pravda. Doesn't sound too reliable. I think I forget the "kvakers" if no better sources come up.

My opinion is that if there are dozens if not hundreds of well-documented, detailed sightings from trained professionals which either represent an unknown phenomenon or a misinterpretation of gigantic proportions it at least earns my attention.

The problem is I'm referring to these sightings the wrong way. I'm just repeating what I've been told others have seen, instead of trying to perform scientific experiments by myself - or referring to scientific experiments made by others, which unfortunately seem to be almost non-existing on this topic.

[gzhpcu]

In particular a lot of these sources seem to imply that because certain observers were trained pilots or experienced members of the military that their findings carry more weight than that of the average person in regard to UFOs. I've found that everyone is equally fallible when it comes to identifying something strange in the sky (or hearing something in the ocean.) This is true whether a person is a pilot, policeman, submarine captain or whatever.

I'm not sure if any of these folks have the sort of tools and scientific knowledge required to adequately analyze these events. And this isn't to mention that they happen very quickly and don't permit a whole lot of room for exhaustive observation. Everything is very ephemeral.

I posted an article about exactly that here: http://www.bautforum.com/1457339-post1.html

[Jason_Roberts]

I posted an article about exactly that here: http://www.bautforum.com/1457339-post1.html

I love Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

[hhEb09'1]

Insults, arrogant remarks and ad hominem arguments can't prove any idea or hypothesis wrong. My opinion is that they usually just indicate one is afraid their world view is somehow threatened. But I'm glad to notice the tone of discussions on this forum seems to be mostly polite and civilized.

We try.

However, over your last few posts, it seems you've moved into advocacy of there being actual probes here today. I'm considering moving the thread from Life in Space to Conspiracy Theories.

[Teemu L]

We try.

However, over your last few posts, it seems you've moved into advocacy of there being actual probes here today. I'm considering moving the thread from Life in Space to Conspiracy Theories.

That's a bit surprising. As far as I know no one has suggested anything related to conspiracy theories on this thread.

Also, I have never claimed the probes are here today. I have speculated on that matter but for me advocating and speculating are two different things.

I hope you still think about it. I'm not sure whether I want to continue this discussion under such label.

[eburacum45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs

Dear me; I have very strong opinions about Green Fireballs!
That wikipedia entry is the worst, unmitigated rubbish I have yet read on Wikipedia.

Let's get one thing straight; there is nothing unusual about green coloured fireballs. We get many such reports on this forum every year. There are a number of probable causes for their colour; perhaps different fireballs have different reasons for their hue. Some may be coloured by the metals in the meteor itself.

But mostly the reason for the green hue would be the ionisation of oxygen in the air surrounding the bolide as it falls. If you have seen an aurora you may have seen the patches of intense green colour that appear from time to time; this green colour is caused by the excitation of oxygen in a similar fashion to the mechanism that probably causes green meteors. Some regular meteor showers, such as the Leonids, regularly display a green colouration in their tail; here is an APOD picture of one.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981120.html

LaPaz, the meteor expert cited, seems to have been a UFO enthusiast himself; but putting aside this possible source of bias, he seems to have dismissed the possibility that green fireballs could be a natural phenomenon. In some ways I don't blame him; the great Green Fireball controversy was in 1948-50, while the first detection of a strong green wavelength from the spectrum of a meteor was in 1958, when the 'forbidden line of O1' at 5577 Angstroms was first detected. This colour is a nice midgreen, just the sort of colour that is required to explain the green fireballs.

LaPaz was also over-reliant on triangulation using witness statements; he obtained ridiculously low altitudes for some of these objects. As anyone who takes UFOlogy seriously should know, witness statements are not quite as reliable as they should be. When a project was set up to observe these green meteors with cinetheodolites (Project Twinkle) the height obtained was on the order of 150,000 feet, at precisely the height that a natural meteor would be expected to be seen.

Basically, LaPaz was wrong; he didn't have enough information, so you can't really blame him.

But the 'green fireball' entry is kept under constant surveillance by a UFO enthusiast, who is very protective about the disinformation it contains; another reason never to trust Wikipedia.

[Teemu L]

eburacum45, looks you are very well informed about both the Green fireballs and meteors overall (much better than me, I'm afraid). The information you gave about existence of green fireballs and causes of their color were very interesting.

There may very well be many errors and inaccurasies on that Wikipedia article. But do we all agree about these?

1) During 1948-50, unusually large amout of green fireballs were reported
2) Most of the reported sightings (at least in USA) were made in New Mexico
3) Lincoln La Paz, who were apparently considered one of the leading meteor experts of the time (www. math.ohio-state.edu/history/biographies/lapaz/) and who personally witnessed the phenomenon, concluded they couldn't have been meteors (based on several reasons, one of them being green color)

I'm not sure if La Paz suspected extraterrestials. According to this source he was more prone to blaime "commies": www. project1947.com/gr/22jan53lapaz.htm

I also support your suggestion putting aside La Paz's opinions about extraterrestials as a possible source of bias. Sure, there could have been bias but it should be proved somehow. Even if he supported extraterrestial hypothesis I don't think it necessarily means his research were somehow faulty. Because I assume somebody supporting a traditional or conservative explanation for some phenomenan could be biased as well. It's a bit too easy to start pointing people and judging their work biased: it's something anybody could do.

Almost simultaneously with the Green fireballs something resembling it was going on in Sweden. Objects that many witnesses claimed to resemble rockets were flying over the country, sometimes even crash-landing to lakes. The phonemenon was called "Ghost Rockets". It seems some Swedes believed the objects were German rocket technology put use by Russians. We can now conclude pretty safely that wasn't a case. So what left Swedes so agitated? Ordinary meteors? If that was the case, why Swedes started to suddenly misinterpret them? They weren't even ever targeted by rocket weapons, unlike British and Dutch people.

I couldn't easily find a document describing the official view of Swedish authorities. Except for... could any of you guys confirm or deny the authenticity of this document (notice there are two lines in url)?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1948_Top_Secret_USAF_UFO_extraterrestrial_doc
ument.png

The name doesn't sound too good but let's not judge it solely because of it. If I lived in Washington I would go to check it out right away, but unfortunately I'm living a bit farther. :/

And don't get me wrong. I don't think the Ghost rockets, the Green fireballs or even the Foo fighters could prove my ideas valid. I'm just speculating with these things to find any dead ends. And I'm glad when you guys help me by pointing out something or giving additional information. For example Jason_Roberts's information about Pravda and eburacum45 information about Green fireballs and meteors.

Damn, I wanted to write about my ideas how probe family could communicate to members of it and ask your opinions. Well, maybe next time then.

PS. Sorry about my irritating way to write links. It's because I wanted to avoid moderation queue. But as I now have 10 postings the problem should be solved.

[R.A.F.]

Even if he supported extraterrestial hypothesis I don't think it necessarily means his research were somehow faulty.

If it blinds him into discarding the mundane explanation (as it appearently has), then, yes, it is proper to conclude that his research is faulty.

...I assume somebody supporting a traditional or conservative explanation for some phenomenan could be biased as well.

Not when that "traditional" explanation can be easily varified by convincing evidence (ie., the photo of a green fireball.)

[Teemu L]

If it blinds him into discarding the mundane explanation (as it appearently has), then, yes, it is proper to conclude that his research is faulty.

Not when that "traditional" explanation can be easily varified by convincing evidence (ie., the photo of a green fireball.)

I got to say you are using strong statements on a short posting. It sounds like you are confident the explanation for the Green fireballs always were self-evident. The problem was just in the bias and/or lack of mental capabilities of those scientists, officers and engineers who witnessed the phenomenon and took it seriously. I hope I misunderstood you, because otherwise that sounds a little... well, a little too over-confident.

I would also have appreciated if you had told do you agree or disagree those three claims about green fireballs.

[eburacum45]

) During 1948-50, unusually large amount of green fireballs were reported

They still are; here is one reported on this board earlier this month
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astro...ting-star.html

2) Most of the reported sightings (at least in USA) were made in New Mexico

This appears to have been a 'flap'; because of a number of reports of a certain type of phenomenon in an area, witnesses start to specifically look out for that phenomenon - and because green fireballs really are not that unusual, people start to see them. And some false reports might be made in some cases- not necessarily in this case, however.

3) Lincoln La Paz, concluded they couldn't have been meteors (based on several reasons, one of them being green color)

But he was wrong about the green colour, as was discovered later (in 1958) when mid-green was detected in the spectrum of certain meteors. He seems also to have been wrong about the height too- as Project Twinkle seems to have demonstrated.

What is more likely- that a relatively common natural phenomenon was misinterpreted, or that alien probes were flying around in the skies of New Mexico with bright green lights on, almost exactly replicating that phenomenon?

To be honest, it is possible that an alien probe might try to replicate a natural phenomenon as camouflage- but I suspect that they would choose something less conspicuous.

[Jason_Roberts]

Yeah, I don't think I've seen any advocacy of conspiracy theories so far.

There were some examples earlier that suggested the possibility of ET involvement, but they were effectively retracted.

[gzhpcu]

I would second that. It is just a theoretical discussion of the von Neumann probles and a speculation that if some ufos prove to be exterrestrial spaceships, they might very well be von Neumann probes.