ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Likelihood
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations and the implications of recent astrophysical discoveries. Participants explore the validity of UFO reports as potential evidence for these civilizations, referencing a specific article from the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. The conversation touches on the reputations of involved scientists and the challenges of discussing controversial topics within the scientific community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations, arguing against the outright dismissal of UFO reports as potential evidence.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the credibility of certain scientists involved in the discussion, particularly Harold Puthoff, with some expressing skepticism about his past associations and the implications for his current work.
  • There are mixed feelings about the reputation of researchers like Maccabee, with some viewing him as a true believer whose objectivity may be compromised, while others acknowledge his contributions to optical analysis.
  • Participants discuss the nature of scientific inquiry into UFOs, noting that controversial subjects can lead to reputational risks for scientists and that peer review is essential for maintaining credibility.
  • One participant mentions a related paper on breakthrough propulsion concepts, suggesting that discussions around advanced propulsion methods are also relevant to the topic of extraterrestrial travel.
  • There is a debate about the format and content of Maccabee's book, with some questioning the balance of fact and fiction and its implications for the reader's understanding of UFO phenomena.
  • Some participants express a desire to engage with researchers in the field, indicating a respect for their intelligence and sincerity despite differing opinions on their conclusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the credibility of the scientists involved and the validity of UFO reports as evidence for extraterrestrial life. There is no consensus on the reputations of specific individuals or the implications of their work, indicating ongoing disagreement and uncertainty in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of discussing UFOs and extraterrestrial life, noting the potential for bias and the challenges of maintaining objectivity in a field that often attracts fringe opinions. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on the intersection of science and belief.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
...Now a team of American scientists note that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest that we should find ourselves in the midst of one or more extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, they argue it is a mistake to reject all UFO reports since some evidence for the theoretically-predicted extraterrestrial visitors might just be found there.

...The researchers make their proposal in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS).[continued]

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/et_betterodds_050114.html
The link is good but as you can imagine, very slow. A few tries works best if needed.

For some very striking government reports [NSA, CIA, USAF, etc], see also:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I like the article, I am just put off that Puthoff was a collaborator. Apologies for allowing reputation to cloud opinions.
 
I'm not sure about your reference, [or was that a pun? put off by Puhtoff :biggrin:] but how does one address subjects like this and still maintain a good reputation? :biggrin:
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I'm not sure about your reference, [or was that a pun? put off by Puhtoff :biggrin:] but how does one address subjects like this and still maintain a good reputation? :biggrin:
Yeah, it was a bad pun [is there a such thing as a good pun?] It certainly is no easy task to seriously discuss controversial issues like ET without taking some hits. Harold Puthoff, is however, no stranger to controversy. It goes back to the 70's when he and Russell Targ were shamelessly bamboozled by the infamous Uri Geller. And that is not entirely fair. Not being illusionists, you can hardly put all the blame on them for not realizing they'd been had. But, there was plenty to go around and you can't step in doo-doo without getting some on you. Puthoff has also written some pretty fringe stuff on ZPF.
 
It sounds to me like everyone should read this very closely, just to check for errors. :biggrin:

I've talked with Maccabee a bit and he is...unusual. He was also either taken in, or part of a hoax, down in Gulf Breeze Florida [Ed Walters case]. Of course, like any scientist, his words are often twisted by the media and the nutjobs. He then appears to have said more than he did, in fact. Also, by the nature of what they investigate, sooner or later people like this are bound screw up. Since, like anyone else, his papers are subject to peer review, and after watching him a bit, it struck me that [I think] he is a true believer and tired of arguing the point. Somtimes I think this happens to otherwise credible scientists. Obviously they are now suspect with regards to objectivity, but that's why we have peer review. This is really no different than any other biased perspective held by other scientists as it relates to what they do; albeit that the implications are much greater than in most cases.
 
Spoken like a true scientist. Anytime a scientist voices an opinion, they are pretty much guaranteed to draw a fringe following. Hard to blame them for saying 'hehe' when asked for their best guess about anything.
 
A related paper

Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion from Physics
(Available as NASA TM-2004-213082)
May-2004
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland Ohio 44145

Abstract
"Space drives," "Warp drives," and "Wormholes:" these concepts may sound like science fiction, but they are being written about in reputable journals. To assess the implications of these emerging prospects for future spaceflight, NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996 through 2002. This Project has three grand challenges: (1) Discover propulsion that eliminates the need for propellant; (2) Discover methods to achieve hyperfast travel; and (3) Discover breakthrough methods to power spacecraft . Because these challenges are presumably far from fruition, and perhaps even impossible, a special emphasis is placed on selecting incremental and affordable research that addresses the critical issues behind these challenges. Of 16 incremental research tasks completed by the Project and from other sponsors, about a third were found not to be viable, a quarter have clear opportunities for sequels, and the rest remain unresolved.[continued]
http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/nasa_tm2004.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Maccabee
My book ABDUCTION IN MY LIFE is available from me directly (autographed) or from Amazon. This uniquely written combination of fiction and fact (there is a fact book with bibliography built into the story) has received uniformly good reviews.
Uniquely written combination of fiction and fact? Is this the USDA version of truth in advertising? [90% fiction, 10% fact]. Sounds like Arp statistics to me. I doubt Russ, SA or Integral was on that review panel.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I doubt that's what he meant. I think he meant good reviews as fiction. Like many scientists, he writes about what he does; mostly claimed as fact but now with some fiction [explicitly, fiction] thrown in.

...This book is unique in its format. It which includes a referenced book of UFO facts that is built into the story. This is unlike other UFO fiction books. Other books present factual information as part of the fiction story but the facts that are not clearly designated as such, so that the reader who is not thoroughly familiar with the UFO subject would not recognize tham as fact. That is, the typical reader would not know what is fact and what is fiction from reading other UFO fiction books. However, in this book it will be clear...
http://brumac.8k.com/AbductionInLife/BookPromo.html

No doubt he is a true believer - he certainly believes that ET has been here -but his science can be judged on its own merit. His role has primarily been that of optical analysis - he is an optical physicist working for the Navy...the last time that I checked. For example, not too long ago he wrote one paper RADAR ducting [RADAR mirages] and how and when it applies. Most of this information and his papers are linked in the S&D forum's UFO Napster or at his website. With people like Maccabee, one goes over the edge into belief systems pretty quickly. He makes no bones about his personal opinions. But like most people, his opinions and beliefs are not statements of science.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that he's a charlatan, but I think "true believer" is more accurate. In either case, physics is physics, and there's no faking that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Ivan,

One of the authors of http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf ,linked above also, is local to us. I have met, and have a lot of respect for, him. He is very intelligent and is very sincere in his beliefs. He has done a lot of research on "UFOs" and is always ready to discuss his ideas.

It is getting close to 20yrs since I have seen him but doubt that he has changed much. I am certian that he is still in town.
 
  • #12
I noticed the address. In fact I plan to track him down...a pm is coming... :biggrin:

That is very good to hear. I struggled a bit trying to decide if I should post this here or not. Honestly, Maccabee scares me, but from my point of view as a lowly graduate lacking expertise in optical analysis, his physics appears to be solid, or at least credible.
 
  • #13
Also, I had missed this in the Acknowledgments: We thank P. Sturrock of Stanford University.
I consider Sturrock to be stellar.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/Peter/

Recently, Sturrock announced that one or a few major journals have agreed to publish "well penned" papers on UFOs; finally. One doesn't have to accept ET theories in order to find this subject interesting and baffling.
 
  • #14
One more comment on Maccabee. I just learned today that apparently the proof of a hoax in the Ed Walters case was hoaxed. The model allegedly used to hoax Maccabee contained a hidden date [edit: on a newspaper used in the model's construction], which proved that the model was made after the UFO photos were taken and published. So perhaps Dr. Maccabee's record is clean. At the least, it appears that it has not been shown otherwise.

I don't mean to torture our UFO skeptics here but it seemed only fair that I post.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Hello everyone, well out of respect to the person making the first post I did read the reference. One comment caught my attention:

"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation"

I don't think so. Now I don't want to cause trouble but anyone who believes in aliens visiting earth, in my humble opinion, doesn't have a good grasp of what a light-year is and also grossly under-estimates the massively contingent nature of life especially intelligent life. I'm thinking no more than 2 intelligent forms in all the Milky Way at any given time.

Salty
 
  • #16
You seem to be missing the point of the authors. Modern physics can no longer exclude FTL travel with high certainty. It has also been shown that life could be common in a safe zone of the galaxy. Based on what we know, civilizations a billion years more advanced than us are possible. Can we extrapolate to the science of such potential beings, or can we only make guesses based on a snapshot in the history [and future] of our own technological and scientific development?
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
You seem to be missing the point of the authors. Modern physics can no longer exclude FTL travel with high certainty. It has also been shown that life could be common in a safe zone of the galaxy. Based on what we know, civilizations a billion years more advanced than us are possible. Can we extrapolate to the science of such potential beings, or can we only make guesses based on a snapshot in the history [and future] of our own technological and scientific development?

Oh goodness. Didn't realize it was you, and that you are a mentor here, and also now I see what your picture is. Don't wish to criticize people kind enough to be Mentors (or anyone else here for that matter). I apologize to you sir.

Salty
 
  • #18
The points that you made were perfectly reasonable. I am confused as to why you would apologize. No apologies needed. This is not a popular argument but the logic seems to be sound.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
The points that you made were perfectly reasonable. I am confused as to why you would apologize. No apologies needed. This is not a popular argument but the logic seems to be sound.

You know, maybe I'm the one: I mean, someone could easily say that I don't have a good grasp on how many stars are in the galaxy which I don't. I'm actually a very optimistic person and should feel better about intelligence in the Milky Way. I fell there's plenty of life, tons of it. Advanced? Well, there's so many chance events that have to take place for it to "naturally evolve" from scratch and "persist" long enough to evolve to intelligence.

As far as the apology: It's like me posting the Lorenz Attractor as my picture (which would be very appropriate for me) and then someone telling me recent comments I've made about non-linear dynamics (which I can't prove) "show a lack of grasp".

Salty
 
  • #20
All you theories presume that faster than light travel is possible
please give an explanation, links that show this is true.
 
  • #21
Minor correction to the post above, I meant to say certainty, not high certainty :rolleyes: . I didn't want to edit. :biggrin:


I did not state that FTL travel is possible. I repeated the argument of the authors of the paper who argue that FTL travel can't safely be ruled out; due to concepts like wormholes, Alcubierre Warp Drive, and the potential for additional dimensions that allow for different upper limits of velocity. See page 2 of 8 of this paper. http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

These technologies are certainly not possible in the foreseeable future, but a million years henceforth is not the foreseeable future. If another race of beings has a 100,000,000 years head start, which modern cosmology says may be possible, possibly even common, you prove to me that we can anticipate what technologies may be possible. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #22
IVAN
As you know i am a firm believer in Earth bound anomalies, but as
for ufos and the possibility that some race is a million years in
advance of us humans can only be philosophical until physical
evidence is shown.
In a way i am in the same boat as you as i cannot find my physical
evidence, so anything i say about my event has to viewed with
skepticism.
but science cannot rule anything out, it can only tell us that FLT
is very improbable, as for wormholes and other mechanisms for
travelling vast distances who knows, but i doubt that any life form
will ever be able to traverse space by more than a few LYs.
 
  • #23
I think the point here is to recognize that first, we cannot state with certainty what limits for such technologies may exist. This means that any statement is really only a guess based on a fantastically limited perspective. It is also important to realize that Relativity Theory itself lends to one of these solutions. Inflation theory may be linked to another, and String Theory to another. Given this, and considering the so called galactic safe zone, the almost insidious nature of life, and the vast number of planets likely to be found, it is not possible to say how likely interstellar ETs may be. It may be impossible for ET to get here, but it could be inevitable!

So if you want your evidence, someone is going to have to look. The paper argues that its okay to look. What dreadful heresy!

Edit:
so anything i say about my event has to viewed with skepticism

Based on what you have told me [much earlier in another thread], I think that you probably experienced a close call with ball lightning or something like it. The existence of Ball Lightning is no longer viewed with skepticism by most experts, so neither should your story beyond that of any other encounter with rare but real phenomena.

For more information about ball lightning [as you well know :biggrin: ] please see this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374

Edit part II: Not to derail this completely unpopular UFO discussion, but I wanted to mention that with regard to your exerience, years ago I read a book written by a pioneer in the study of ball lightning - a Japanese Scientist. So as to give you an idea of the energy involved with these things, apparently, and as I recall, there was a house in Japan that was hit by ball lightning back in the late sixties. A good portion of the roof was destroyed! I remember a picture of the roof with a large hole - maybe ten feet in diameter or more. I am also quite sure that this event helped to cinch the debate.
 
Last edited: