Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood

  1. Jan 14, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jan 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 15, 2005 #2
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
  4. Jan 17, 2005 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I like the article, I am just put off that Puthoff was a collaborator. Apologies for allowing reputation to cloud opinions.
     
  5. Jan 17, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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:
     
  6. Jan 17, 2005 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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.
     
  7. Jan 17, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Jan 18, 2005 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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.
     
  9. Jan 21, 2005 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A related paper

    http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/nasa_tm2004.pdf
     
  10. Jan 22, 2005 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    From Maccabee
    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: Jan 22, 2005
  11. Jan 22, 2005 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    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.
     
  12. Jan 22, 2005 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ivan,

    One of the authors of this article ,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.
     
  13. Jan 22, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Jan 26, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Feb 2, 2005 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Feb 2, 2005
  16. Feb 3, 2005 #15

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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
     
  17. Feb 3, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  18. Feb 3, 2005 #17

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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
     
  19. Feb 3, 2005 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Feb 3, 2005 #19

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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
     
  21. Feb 3, 2005 #20

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    All you theories presume that faster than light travel is possible
    please give an explanation, links that show this is true.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood
  1. ET Phone Home (Replies: 14)

  2. ET phone home (Replies: 1)

Loading...