1. Post #361
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    First of all: No, the size of the universe alone says nothing about the actual likelihood of ET life.
    Secondly: Irrelevant to the discussion!
    Sigh..

    First of all: Yes, the size of the universe alone says a lot about the actual likelihood of ET life. Why? It's all about chance. The greater amount of stars = greater chance of a planet being in that perfect location, and with the greater amount of planets out there = greater chance of a perfect planet in a perfect location which equals to life.

    Stop looking at it from a conspiracy theory view and look at it from a scientific view (if you can handle that).

    And no, its not irrelevant to the discussion, its more relevant then the bullshit you spew out of your keyboard.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Iceland Show Events

  2. Post #362
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Yes, the size of the universe alone says a lot about the actual likelihood of ET life. Why? It's all about chance.
    Where are you getting this idea from.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  3. Post #363
    KabsIsBack's Avatar
    August 2011
    461 Posts
    Considering the incredibly large expanse of the universe, the possibility of another intelligent bipedal/quadrupedal life form is very likely. I have strong doubts about them visiting Earth, but on the chance of an intelligent life form is near undeniable.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  4. Post #364
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Considering the incredibly large expanse of the universe, the possibility of another intelligent bipedal/quadrupedal life form is very likely.
    What makes you think that?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  5. Post #365
    KabsIsBack's Avatar
    August 2011
    461 Posts
    What makes you think that?
    Logic? The assumption that we are the only intelligent life forms in the entire universe is incredibly close-minded and unlikely.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  6. Post #366
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    First of all: Yes, the size of the universe alone says a lot about the actual likelihood of ET life. Why? It's all about chance. The greater amount of stars = greater chance of a planet being in that perfect location, and with the greater amount of planets out there = greater chance of a perfect planet in a perfect location which equals to life.
    But it's still a figure completely in the dark, so it's pointless to bring this up.

    Come on, stop going off topic.
    Here is a thread for you: http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1168664
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  7. Post #367
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Logic? The assumption that we are the only intelligent life forms in the entire universe is incredibly close-minded and unlikely.
    How is it unlikely?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  8. Post #368
    KabsIsBack's Avatar
    August 2011
    461 Posts
    How is it unlikely?
    How is it likely? You seem to only be asking me, yet you do not provide why you think my opinion is incorrect.

    It's unlikely because of basic thought, it shouldn't require a super indepth explanation just to say that basic reasoning and logic clearly suggests and states that another intelligent lifeform within the universe isn't such a far-fetched idea.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  9. Post #369
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    How is it likely? You seem to only be asking me, yet you do not provide why you think my opinion is incorrect.

    It's unlikely because of basic thought, it shouldn't require a super indepth explanation just to say that basic reasoning and logic clearly suggests and states that another intelligent lifeform within the universe isn't such a far-fetched idea.
    I'm just wondering how you're judging if it's likely or unlikely, like what are the variables? Is it just 'well the Universe is big so there's more of us'? Because that's really unscientific.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  10. Post #370
    KabsIsBack's Avatar
    August 2011
    461 Posts
    I'm just wondering how you're judging if it's likely or unlikely, like what are the variables? Is it just 'well the Universe is big so there's more of us'? Because that's really unscientific.
    We've thus far, found existing primitive life forms on other planets even within our galaxy, and considering the incredibly large string of galaxies, it shouldn't be hard to imagine that these lifeforms exist there as well, even perhaps more advanced and evolved. Then again, maybe my opinion is silly and I'm just going off of hopes and bias. But regardless, I stand by my point.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  11. Post #371
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    We've thus far, found existing primitive life forms on other planets even within our galaxy...
    No we have not. You clearly haven't done your research and have no idea what you're talking about!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  12. Post #372
    KabsIsBack's Avatar
    August 2011
    461 Posts
    No we have not. You clearly haven't done your research and have no idea what you're talking about!
    Looking up a bit after this, and I've found a few cases of bacteria and such!

    Unfortunately, most were dismissed/'disproved' afaik. Such as that meteorite from November, 2009.

    So perhaps, as I said my opinion is rather dull and overoptimistic, uncited and shitty at best in a lot of people's eyes. I'm not the greatest debater, but following basic reason, it's stupid to assume there's no foreign bacterium or organisms somewhere else in the universe. It's basically the same as saying Earth is the center of the universe.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  13. Post #373
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Looking up a bit after this, and I've found a few cases of bacteria and such!

    Unfortunately, most were dismissed/'disproved' afaik. Such as that meteorite from November, 2009.
    There's nothing conclusive. Not even bacteria.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  14. Post #374
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    But it's still a figure completely in the dark, so it's pointless to bring this up.

    Come on, stop going off topic.
    Haha.

    Because your conspiracy theories are not in the dark?

    Seems so because you've never answered when people ask you for evidence or other related stuff.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Iceland Show Events

  15. Post #375
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Seems so because you've never answered when people ask you for evidence or other related stuff.
    I have replied to every well-formulated question with a well-formulated answer. Have I not?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  16. Post #376
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,842 Posts
    Ok so if we assume that if conditions such as Earth or close to Earth's have to exist to create life (which is not true in the nearest). The amount of stars in the universe with planets gives us a big chance of conditions such as near here to exist. However, if we assume that the universe isn't generally isotropic then we have a problem
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  17. Post #377
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    So much information about this has been leaked for like 50 years. Where do you think we get all this information? So many retired army personel who in later years have started to blow the whistle... Only that hardly anyone listen or take them seriously. Just look at this thread. You're using a circle argument.

    "If the government hid aliens then surely there would be testimonies/leaks"
    "But there are!"
    "They're nutcases. They are full of bullshit. Because there is no proof of aliens."
    "It's a conspiracy."
    "But then there would be leaks!!"


    and so forth...

    It is widely believed that the Roswell incident back in '47 was our first contact with aliens. Three aliens crashed in their ship in the desert (ie first contact was by accident). But then theories start to diverge as to whether there were any survivors, what happened to the ship and bodies, and when any formal contact with the aliens occured.

    But I don't really understand the question. Why is first contact an issue?
    Don't you find it a bit suspicious that "first contact" happened very close to a U.S. Air Base and that there were experimental aircraft being tested in the area?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  18. Post #378
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Don't you find it a bit suspicious that "first contact" happened very close to a U.S. Air Base and that there were experimental aircraft being tested in the area?
    There's no record of experimental aircrafts being developed/tested there. From all I can tell it was a flight school. And it wasn't classified either, like Area 51.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Air_Force_Base
    In other words - not your ideal place to test top secret stuff.

    Also they changed their minds a couple of times before settling on it being a high-altitude balloon, officially. Eye-witnessess stick to the original "crashed disc" version. So what was it - experimental aircraft or a balloon?

    The crash site being coincidental? There are plentyful cases of UFOs crashing in obscure/random places, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident
    So I don't think it's very "convenient" that one UFO crashed some 60 miles from an air base, of which there are plenty of in the US.

    The questions remain: Why did the Air Force first report a flying disc, if it was their own balloon they had sent up? If it was a weather balloon, why did they test it with "passengers"? Why did they report anything at all publically, if the alleged project was classified??

    I think it's obvious we are not being told a key part of this puzzle.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  19. Post #379
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    16,529 Posts
    Given how big the universe is, I would consider the complete non-existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial lifeforms very unlikely. But at the same time, I would consider the actual chances of having one alien civilization reach a high enough level of technology to travel through deep space AND find our own civilization very, very thin, for the exact same reasons as why I think an intelligent alien lifeform exists.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 France Show Events

  20. Post #380
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    There's no record of experimental aircrafts being developed/tested there. From all I can tell it was a flight school. And it wasn't classified either, like Area 51.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Air_Force_Base
    In other words - not your ideal place to test top secret stuff.

    Also they changed their minds a couple of times before settling on it being a high-altitude balloon, officially. Eye-witnessess stick to the original "crashed disc" version. So what was it - experimental aircraft or a balloon?

    The crash site being coincidental? There are plentyful cases of UFOs crashing in obscure/random places, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident
    So I don't think it's very "convenient" that one UFO crashed some 60 miles from an air base, of which there are plenty of in the US.

    The questions remain: Why did the Air Force first report a flying disc, if it was their own balloon they had sent up? If it was a weather balloon, why did they test it with "passengers"? Why did they report anything at all publically, if the alleged project was classified??

    I think it's obvious we are not being told a key part of this puzzle.
    Is it possible that an enemy somehow got a disc-shaped aircraft to near the base, and the government would be too embarrassed that their security was breached, especially if it could create panic?

    Also, what about the Avrocar?

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  21. Post #381
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    I'm just wondering how you're judging if it's likely or unlikely, like what are the variables? Is it just 'well the Universe is big so there's more of us'? Because that's really unscientific.
    Life is simply complex organic reactions, for basic life the building blocks are pretty well spread throughout the universe. Fuck man we've found gas clouds that contain some of the most complex organic molecules known to occur in nature and in life. Thus, the greater the size of the universe the more places there will be that can support these complex reactions and thus the greater the chance that autonomous life can come into being.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  22. Post #382
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,842 Posts
    Is it possible that an enemy somehow got a disc-shaped aircraft to near the base, and the government would be too embarrassed that their security was breached, especially if it could create panic?

    Also, what about the Avrocar?

    avrocar didnt have first flight till 1959, roswell happened in 1947
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  23. Post #383
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    There's no record of experimental aircrafts being developed/tested there. From all I can tell it was a flight school. And it wasn't classified either, like Area 51.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Air_Force_Base
    In other words - not your ideal place to test top secret stuff.
    That does not remove the possibility of an experimental aircraft being tested.

    Also they changed their minds a couple of times before settling on it being a high-altitude balloon, officially. Eye-witnessess stick to the original "crashed disc" version. So what was it - experimental aircraft or a balloon?
    Obviously the Air Force would not want their experimental aircraft to be discovered. It makes sense that they would attempt to hide it by claiming it was a weather balloon.

    The crash site being coincidental? There are plentyful cases of UFOs crashing in obscure/random places, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident
    So I don't think it's very "convenient" that one UFO crashed some 60 miles from an air base, of which there are plenty of in the US.
    The fact that most "UFO sightings" occur in obscure areas points to military involvement, where top secret experiments would be tested in less populated areas.

    The questions remain: Why did the Air Force first report a flying disc, if it was their own balloon they had sent up? If it was a weather balloon, why did they test it with "passengers"? Why did they report anything at all publically, if the alleged project was classified??
    Because they didn't want people to figure out what they were testing. Someone after realizing that reporting a "flying disk" could compromise the experimental project, they probably changed the story to disguise their blunder.

    I think it's obvious we are not being told a key part of this puzzle.
    How is the fact that we are missing information evidence of aliens?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  24. Post #384
    Gold Member
    danharibo's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,432 Posts
    There's no record of experimental aircrafts being developed/tested there. From all I can tell it was a flight school. And it wasn't classified either, like Area 51.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Air_Force_Base
    In other words - not your ideal place to test top secret stuff.

    Also they changed their minds a couple of times before settling on it being a high-altitude balloon, officially. Eye-witnessess stick to the original "crashed disc" version. So what was it - experimental aircraft or a balloon?

    The crash site being coincidental? There are plentyful cases of UFOs crashing in obscure/random places, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident
    So I don't think it's very "convenient" that one UFO crashed some 60 miles from an air base, of which there are plenty of in the US.

    The questions remain: Why did the Air Force first report a flying disc, if it was their own balloon they had sent up? If it was a weather balloon, why did they test it with "passengers"? Why did they report anything at all publically, if the alleged project was classified??

    I think it's obvious we are not being told a key part of this puzzle.
    If some species can make it the hundreds or thousands of light-years it would take to reach Earth, how are they so incompetent that they always crash?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United Kingdom Show Events

  25. Post #385
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Obviously the Air Force would not want their experimental aircraft to be discovered. It makes sense that they would attempt to hide it by claiming it was a weather balloon.
    They are still sticking to this story - to this day!
    If some species can make it the hundreds or thousands of light-years it would take to reach Earth, how are they so incompetent that they always crash?
    They always crash? There are very very few reports of crashed UFOs compared to sightings alone. This indicates that they very rarely crash.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  26. Post #386
    Gold Member
    danharibo's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,432 Posts
    They always crash? There are very very few reports of crashed UFOs compared to sightings alone. This indicates that they very rarely crash.
    So if even just one of them was captured by us, it would be reverse engineered and we'd have all sorts of technological advancements.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United Kingdom Show Events

  27. Post #387
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    So if even just one of them was captured by us, it would be reverse engineered and we'd have all sorts of technological advancements.
    Isn't it odd how computers just popped up after 6000 years of not having computers?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux Australia Show Events

  28. Post #388
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    They are still sticking to this story - to this day!
    You know, after hastily responding to your other post, I did some research on the Roswell incident, and I found a lot of things that outright contradict what you are claiming. A lot of information can be found straight from the Air Force report of the incident done in 1994. For instance, the Army Air Force (as it was at the time in 1947) did not, in fact, originally claim that the object was a disk and then later change their story. They, from the beginning, claimed that the object had been the damaged remains of a weather balloon. No corpses or remains, Human or otherwise, were ever found near the wreckage. And the source from which the "flying disk" claims originate reads as follows:

    [release]"..The disc is hexagonal in shape and was suspended from a balloon by a cable, which balloon was approximately twenty feet in diameter. ...the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector. ...disc and balloon being transported..."[/release]

    They always crash? There are very very few reports of crashed UFOs compared to sightings alone. This indicates that they very rarely crash.
    Regardless of the proportion of sighting to crashes, the fact that there have been so many UFO crash claims is very suspicious seeing how even after almost 70 years, aliens continue to fail at flying their ships and have crashed hundreds of times, each time leaving apparently obvious evidence of their existence and giving no effort to conceal themselves, contrary to the fact that they are all supposedly in collusion with the government, trying to hide their existence...

    Do you see how implausible this is?

    Isn't it odd how computers just popped up after 6000 years of not having computers?
    And cities too! For 500 thousand years Humans lived as hunter gatherers, and within a few thousand years, we had population centers sprouting all around the globe. I believe aliens are to blame.

    Of course, ancient governments also covered up these aliens. They were probably bribed by the aliens to keep the secret. You think Zeus gave King Midas the golden touch? More like ALIENS gave it to him!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  29. Post #389
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    Do you see how implausible this is?
    I think the problem with people like Rad is the same problem you see with highly religious people, its not that they believe because there's lack of evidence to contradict them but its the fact that they want to believe.

    Just like the aliens guy, "Hey, a pyramid! We don't know how they built it with their technology so it must be aliens!" is really similar to "Hey, we don't know why x is like that so it must be God!"
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Iceland Show Events

  30. Post #390
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    Guys we had major technological advances just after Roswell, you can't explain that shit! It's aliens man!

    Nah but really why the fuck would aliens come to earth and not announce their visit? If they can come to Earth then they'll have observed us and realised that as a species we're fucking retarded and would have kept their distance until we had actually became a mature species.

    Aliens haven't visited earth, just straight up havent, cause they would have better things to do with their time.

    Besides if there are aliens close enough to the Earth to drop in and say hi then why haven't we picked up any radio signals from space that aren't produced by natural phenomena?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  31. Post #391
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    cause they would have better things to do with their time.
    Well unless the universe is filled with life, then yeah true they wouldn't bother with us but if they are some super high tech advanced civilization and even if we are a loooooot of light years away then they would still check us out if they had the tech because life is rare (as far as we know)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Iceland Show Events

  32. Post #392
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    So why haven't they made contact?

    What the fuck is the point in a journey that dangerous just to sit and look at us from afar?

    We have never been visited by aliens man, there is literally no point for them to come and see us and not make contact.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  33. Post #393
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    So why haven't they made contact?

    What the fuck is the point in a journey that dangerous just to sit and look at us from afar?
    .......Because they are not real?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Iceland Show Events

  34. Post #394
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    Sorry I thought you were implying that ET was real and had been dropping by every now and again. I really need to get more sleep :smith:
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  35. Post #395
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    What the fuck is the point in a journey that dangerous just to sit and look at us from afar?

    There is literally no point for them to come and see us and not make contact.
    This reasoning is so stupid because:
    a) It's impossible for you to think up any scenario where you would want to observe something from a distance instead of jumping right into it (go learn some science).
    b) You assume that aliens, ETs, intelligent life developed completely separately from humans, use human logic.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  36. Post #396
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    See here's the thing, objective logic is objective logic.

    There will never be a single alien species that will dive balls first into an unknown situation with another new intelligent life form, NEVER. It's way too risky and frankly they wouldn't be exceptionally intelligent if they done that sort of shit on a regular basis.

    See the thing is, if they are capable of watching us from a distance then they should do that, not fly all the way over and then observe us.

    Honestly there's no reason to believe at all, that at any point in the Earths history that we have been visited by aliens, and for anyone who believes they have, I would like to see evidence.

    Edited:

    Also a good scientist wouldn't jump head first into a situation to learn it, for the simple reason it could be incredibly dangerous.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  37. Post #397
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    See here's the thing, objective logic is objective logic.

    There will never be a single alien species that will dive balls first into an unknown situation with another new intelligent life form, NEVER. It's way too risky and frankly they wouldn't be exceptionally intelligent if they done that sort of shit on a regular basis.
    I get the impression that first you ask why they haven't contacted us, and then you post a perfectly good answer to it yourself? Make up your mind?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Sweden Show Events

  38. Post #398
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    No what I'm wondering is that if ET is real, why would he not sit in orbit or at a distance and observe us, as oppossed to coming down in spaceships?

    You seem to believe that ET is kicking around on Earth to some degree or is near Earth to some degree so what I'm curious about is the first point and I've not yet got a satisfactory answer to it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP Professional x64 Europe Show Events

  39. Post #399
    Dennab
    October 2008
    1,044 Posts
    I always heard that a person's eye color, genes can describe which star cluster the person originated from. Like ice blue is from Pleiades?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  40. Post #400
    Dennab
    October 2010
    12,254 Posts
    It would be kinda funny to land on another exoplanet because then we would have to write a new set of books of biology/geography/etc.

    Or just add to ours, but seeing as how we haven't even fully researched our own planet, it would be quite a chore to fully research an entire another planet.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Finland Show Events