Opinion Poll on Bigfoot, Alien, Ghosts

[pierre45]

This is part of a survey I am doing for a class project, wanted to get a sampling from the scientific community. Many Thanks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I voted that ghosts may exist but we may not agree on what we mean by ghosts. There is a wide range of alleged phenomena, each of which are generally interpreted as one or another of so called ghosts, but what I really mean by my vote is seemingly unexplained phenomena. I do think odd things happen, but I don't leap to any particular interpretation of that phenomena as being due to the souls of the dead, evil spirits, transdimensional beings, or any of the many explanations conjured up in the pop culture. On the other hand, some of this stuff is downright spooky.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I voted that bigfoot of the Pacific Northwest absolutely does not exist. The last one of us has finally migrated to San Diego County and we're all called Zoobies now.

 

[pierre45]

Hi Ivan,
Yes, I'm using "ghosts" as kind of a catch-all phrase for...well...something hard to sum up in a word, but juicier than "unexplained phenomenon". So I think you were right in voting yes.

It's interesting, the two differences between this poll and another I ran elsewhere is only in the Alien category, I've found more true blue believers elsewhere...and in the Bigfoot category, apparently some here are more open to the idea of Bigfoot being possibly real than I've found elsewhere.

I was using these opinion gatherings in helping me to decide what to write a paper on...and ultimately decided on Aliens, what the phenomenom says about our culture. I believe my conclusion will be that I'm not sure what terrifies me more, the idea that Aliens beings are cruising the Earth abducting, poking, and prodding people...or the idea that a few percent of the population are so delusional that they believe that they have been abducted. Either way, for all the play this subject does get in the mainstream press, it deserves much more...because of course, if it is true, what could possibly be more important?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Within the given context, here but rarely if ever interacting with humans, is another option...whatever they might be, which would be another question entirely were they here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I believe my conclusion will be that I'm not sure what terrifies me more, the idea that Aliens beings are cruising the Earth abducting, poking, and prodding people...or the idea that a few percent of the population are so delusional that they believe that they have been abducted.

Thing is, the "abductions" are more vivid and realistic than you probably suppose. We talk about it in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108665

You ought to read at least up to my "abduction", and however much of the resultant discussion hold your interest. It should have bearing on your paper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I voted that bigfoot of the Pacific Northwest absolutely does not exist. The last one of us has finally migrated to San Diego County and we're all called Zoobies now.

That surprises me. Was it the alleged debunking of the Patterson film?

 

[zoobyshoe]

That surprises me. Was it the alleged debunking of the Patterson film?

I was joking. I actually voted "may exist".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Big foot doesn't exist.(excluding zoobyshoe)

Alien life is very likely given the number of galaxies in the universe, but has it visited probably not.

Ghosts exists or at least people see something, what it is or even if they actually do see anythign but a halucination or whatever is currently anyones guess.

 

[pierre45]

Thing is, the "abductions" are more vivid and realistic than you probably suppose. We talk about it in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108665

You ought to read at least up to my "abduction", and however much of the resultant discussion hold your interest. It should have bearing on your paper.

Sorry Zoob, didn't mean for that to sound dismissive, they are very vivid and realistic I know. My point is that there are only two possibilities, either they are all delusions of some kind (all of them), or at least some of them (one even) are real. If they are all delusions it is very worrisome, if they aren't then it is truly terrifying. That's all I meant.

 

[pierre45]

I read your story, I had a dream once that was not similar in it's details but very similar in it's vividness, it was as if it happened. I was sleeping, and my dream so far as I can remember did not have a lead-in to the event (like you walking to Micky D's) so I never would have considered it more than a dream.

(I dreamt) I was with a friend of mine, Adam, out at my summer cabin. I recall distinctly his 55 Chevy parked out near a storage shed, both doors open, us standing outside and to the front of the car looking up. It was night. There was a blue beam of light shining down on me, but it almost existed more as a sound that a light...there was a very intense buzzing low freq noise in my head...it was a little like it had control of my head, I was not necessarily able to think or do anything...the buzz had control. I do remember thinking that "ahhhh...so this is a tractor beam" It was one of the most intense feelings I've ever had, I remember the feeling now 10 years later just as I did when I woke up.

It was very strange all the way around, extremely intense. But I don't count that as a delusion, it was a dream. I'm more interested in the abduction stories that occur when people claim to have been awake. Or people waking up with their clothes on backwards...you know less explicable stuff. They are either bone crazy, or it's happening.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But I don't count that as a delusion, it was a dream. I'm more interested in the abduction stories that occur when people claim to have been awake.

I think we went into this in that thread. Sleep paralysis with accompanying hallucinations followed by false memories edited in after the fact probably account for many. Then I think I mentioned trance states induced by having lights from airplanes catch your eye while you're fatigued from driving.

(It's interesting, I just happened to watch the old Humphrey Bogart film They Drive By Night about long distance truckers, and the whole culture they describe is one of stopping to chug coffee so they didn't fall asleep at the wheel. Despite that, there are two major accidents in the film caused by people falling sound asleep while driving. A girl I know told me the story of going cross country with a guy and waking up from a nap to look over and see her friend at the wheel with his eyes closed, snoring peacefully. My bet is that many people end up driving long distances in some in-between state - eyes open, and partially reactive to the environment, but essentially in a trance. )

Or people waking up with their clothes on backwards...you know less explicable stuff. They are either bone crazy, or it's happening.

If you have the time you might research the phenomenon of Complex-Partial seizures. These are non-convulsive seizures that essentially can throw a person right from full consciousness into a sleepwalking state. Many people perform complex actions during complex partials for which they later have total amnesia. Taking your clothes off and putting them on backwards is completely consistent with the sort of thing they might do. Undressing is common. I read an account by one guy who would take his trousers off, take everything out of the pockets, and arrange all the stuff neatly on a table, then go wandering around with no pants on. In all cases, regardless of the particular thing they do during the seizure, the common thing to all is amnesia for the event after it's over. In other words: missing time.

The trouble with this kind of seizure is that if no one sees them in that state, tell them what they did, and gets them to a doctor, it won't occur to them that the "missing time" represents a neurological problem. I think a lot of abductees are undiagnosed cases of Complex-Partial seizures, which the person embroiders with false memories of abduction, when that's the only thing they've heard of that seems to explain it.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I voted for, alien life exsts and there is concrete proof. Every night that I look up at a clear sky, it is proof enough. I guess I'm just a little bit too far ahead... it's another "earth is flat" era... and I've already accepted that it's round. The only reason so many people haven't accepted this yet is because of organized religions. Erase that from your mind and you're free to explore your existence and come to accepting truths about the universe.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I voted for, alien life exsts and there is concrete proof. Every night that I look up at a clear sky, it is proof enough.

The "proof" part of the question, though, is about them having visited earth, not about the notion of there being life somewhere else.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A leap of faith or a so called expanded consciousness is not concrete proof; unless of course you have met ET.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Oh, I understand. I'm being a little careful about that! Last time I mentioned anything about it, I was banned. Trying to be respectful to the site so I can stick around and have conversation with you otherwise nice and intellectual folk. :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, "I believe because I've seen one" is absolutely allowed in the S&D forum. In this case it was a poll asking your opinion, but as a rule, "I know it to be true just because", is another thing. As long as we stick with the perceived facts from personal experiences and don't get into theories or extended messages from ET, I would like to hear your story - we are always interested in sincere claims of direct observations of phenomena. Feel free to start a thread.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The chances of their not being ET life in the universe are extremely small to the point of the notion that their isn't being somewhat absurd, the problem is the sparsity of life and the distances involved. I'm not going to start making any definitive claims that ET life has visited Earth unless I start making mashed potato mountains after seeing lots of alien space craft/aliens.

Ghosts undoubtedly people have seen or experienced bizarre phenomena, the question is, is it something "real" or material, is it halucination. Is the number of hauntings related to an area indicative of the ambience and general histroy and rumour, real events, or even just fanciful imaginings primed by sugestion. Is their some sort of imprinting on an area when particularly horrific events happen? Answer? Jury is out?

Bigfoot, aw cmon now, it's a plot by the parks commision to get more tourist/government money

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan flipped his avatar!

 

[Anttech]

I voted no aliens no ghosts and no big foot.. But I am 100% sure of the loch ness monster

 

[Anttech]

The chances of their not being ET life in the universe are extremely small to the point of the notion that their isn't being somewhat absurd, the problem is the sparsity of life and the distances involved.

why is the chance so small? Ok let me rephrase that, from a statiscal view point it could be argued within a closed system that is true. But I believe this is assuming the fluke nature to our exsistance, ie the Earth happened becuase it was probably going to happen. We can't prove this, as fact. Nor can we prove as fact the assumption that We are the reason the Universe is here, as some Shamanic Tribes believe, if we are the reason for this universe there is no reason for there to be statiscally any Aliens..

My 2 cents.. :p

 

[pierre45]

part of the problem with my poll is there are just too many iterations and subtleties that could have been included...I tried to break things down into what I thought were meaningful categories, basically hardcore skeptic, jury is out, and true believer.

I saw a poll the other day that more people believe Aliens are visiting the Earth than voted for either candidate in the last Nat'l election. I found that quite striking, and came up with some arguments to explain why "we" are so seemingly willing to believe. Most of them focused on religious aspects, both on our societies proven ability to take things on faith (widespread belief in God) and the alien subculture as a new kind of religion for a lot of people. And wondering where the phenomenom is heading, either an Alien unveiling, into the scrapheap with werewolves and vampires, or an actual cemented new age religion with fairly widespread appeal. Or some hybrid. In any case, very interesting subject.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found that quite striking, and came up with some arguments to explain why "we" are so seemingly willing to believe. Most of them focused on religious aspects, both on our societies proven ability to take things on faith (widespread belief in God) and the alien subculture as a new kind of religion for a lot of people.

People almost have to believe things other people tell them in order to survive in society. It's really not linked to religion at all, but is a habit established by parents. It really takes a tremendous amount of effort for an individual to unhook their ideas about the world from their peers because it means a certain amount of alienation. I was talking to a girl a few months ago who said something like: "What about ghosts, eh? There must be something to that. Just about everybody you know has some kind of ghost story." If someone you know and like says they saw a ghost it can be seen as anti-social to express active doubt.

 

[pierre45]

I agree with what you're saying if you're putting it in the context of a guy trying to score with a girl, or even any kind of social interaction one on one, its called being polite, but that doesn't mean you actually buy it. And in a situation of a poll, anonymous, 34% said yes I believe Aliens are here. Thats staggering.

I think your logic explains immediate personal relations, but not private thinking, especially with the countervailing self congratulating we all get from detecting BS and identifying someone else as full of it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think your logic explains immediate personal relations, but not private thinking, especially with the countervailing self congratulating we all get from detecting BS and identifying someone else as full of it.

People's private thinking can change dramatically when someone they like come up with a story like this. It's often more intolerable to think about such a person having been hallucinating without realizing it, or even having been fooled by anomalous but ordinary things than to be open to paranormal explanations. If most people in your circle of friends believe in something and have a story, it really becomes an act of an anti-social nature to even think of them all as deluded. More comfortable to say "How about ghosts, eh? Seems like everybody has a ghost story. There's got to be something to it." What I sensed in that girls remark was something to the effect of "I'm not going to be so arrogant as to think they're all deluded or lying." because that would mean cutting herself off from them. So, when she takes the poll she say, yes, there probably something to it.

 

[Chronos]

Bigfoot - not. . . I'd bet on crop circles before going there. Aliens - absolutely, but no visitations. Ghosts - yes, but they reside in my UFO folder. The observational evidence is good, but the explanations are deficient.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why so absolute on Bigfoot?

 

[SGT]

Sorry Zoob, didn't mean for that to sound dismissive, they are very vivid and realistic I know. My point is that there are only two possibilities, either they are all delusions of some kind (all of them), or at least some of them (one even) are real. If they are all delusions it is very worrisome, if they aren't then it is truly terrifying. That's all I meant.

I don't agree with your assertion that there are only two possibilities. In the case of UFO sightings, the more likely explanation is misidentification of prosaic objects. In the case of alien abductions, many of them may be explained by lies.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

why is the chance so small? Ok let me rephrase that, from a statiscal view point it could be argued within a closed system that is true. But I believe this is assuming the fluke nature to our exsistance, ie the Earth happened becuase it was probably going to happen. We can't prove this, as fact. Nor can we prove as fact the assumption that We are the reason the Universe is here, as some Shamanic Tribes believe, if we are the reason for this universe there is no reason for there to be statiscally any Aliens..

My 2 cents.. :p

I mean no offence but that is a stunningly egocentric observation, or homosapienscentric would be more accurate. Prove we are the "centre" of the universe and I'll deny inevitabiltiy of life elsewhere in it

Earth is not unique IMO, and atm it is just that, I don't see how a trillion star systems would alow just one Earth. It's fairly unfeasable. Again I'm hypothesising, but it's not a bad hypothesis to supose life is out there elsewhere.

Need to build an interferometry telescope somewhere passed the Earth's atmosphere and soon IMHO.

I don't agree with your assertion that there are only two possibilities. In the case of UFO sightings, the more likely explanation is misidentification of prosaic objects. In the case of alien abductions, many of them may be explained by lies.

Yeah and what's the best way to cover up the mundane but "top secret"? Get a government agency to say it's all lies and leak "top secret documents" that say the contrary. Nice work Major have a shiny badge for your collar Sometimes military intelligence is not ah, damn I forgot the word it means a contradiction in terms, you know what I mean.

 

[SGT]

The chances of their not being ET life in the universe are extremely small to the point of the notion that their isn't being somewhat absurd, the problem is the sparsity of life and the distances involved. I'm not going to start making any definitive claims that ET life has visited Earth unless I start making mashed potato mountains after seeing lots of alien space craft/aliens.

This is only an opinion. It is also my opinion that life should be quite abundant in the Universe. But when we talk about inteligent life and technological civilizations, the problem is entirely diverse. The Drake equation proposes to estimate the number of technological civilizations. It is a very smart proposal, but relies on several unknown parameters. I have seen one choice of parameters that leads to the existence of only one such civilization in the Universe. Since humans constitute a technological society, there should be no other. Of course, choosing different values fo the parameters we can arrive at other numbers.
I stick with my opinion that alien life probably exists, but there is no hard evidence for alien visitations on Earth.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

This is only an opinion. It is also my opinion that life should be quite abundant in the Universe. But when we talk about inteligent life and technological civilizations, the problem is entirely diverse. The Drake equation proposes to estimate the number of technological civilizations. It is a very smart proposal, but relies on several unknown parameters. I have seen one choice of parameters that leads to the existence of only one such civilization in the Universe. Since humans constitute a technological society, there should be no other. Of course, choosing different values fo the parameters we can arrive at other numbers.
I stick with my opinion that alien life probably exists, but there is no hard evidence for alien visitations on Earth.

I see: yeah I agree; thanks for the clarification

 

[pierre45]

I don't agree with your assertion that there are only two possibilities. In the case of UFO sightings, the more likely explanation is misidentification of prosaic objects. In the case of alien abductions, many of them may be explained by lies.

delusion: A false belief or opinion.

I think your first example falls squarely under the delusion category, your second example is an assumed possibility, but I was talking specifically about those who THINK they are recounting the truth. Which I think is a high percentage of the cases.

 

[SGT]

delusion: A false belief or opinion.

I think your first example falls squarely under the delusion category, your second example is an assumed possibility, but I was talking specifically about those who THINK they are recounting the truth. Which I think is a high percentage of the cases.

And how can you distinguish between a delusional witness and a liar?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You can't but you can at least prove the liar to be so, the person who is delusional, well that's a really hard thing to prove, and therein lies the rub

 

[pierre45]

And how can you distinguish between a delusional witness and a liar?

I don't know, and for the purposes of my paper I don't really care whether they are one or the other. What I am interested in is why so many people find it so easy to believe that they are neither.

If someone sees something in the sky that is strange...I have no trouble believing them, that they saw something. If they tell me it was an Alien spaceship, why would I accept that at face value? Why would I think they know what an alien spaceship looks like? Why would I think they would know what the flight pattern of an alien spacecraft would be?

I am trying to understand both A) Why people who see strange things are so willing to attribute it to be Alien in nature, and B) Why people who haven't seen them are so willing to accept that that is in fact what other people have seen?

I can understand believing that they have seen SOMETHING, but why the ready acceptance of the definition?

 

[SGT]

I don't know, and for the purposes of my paper I don't really care whether they are one or the other. What I am interested in is why so many people find it so easy to believe that they are neither.

If someone sees something in the sky that is strange...I have no trouble believing them, that they saw something. If they tell me it was an Alien spaceship, why would I accept that at face value? Why would I think they know what an alien spaceship looks like? Why would I think they would know what the flight pattern of an alien spacecraft would be?

I am trying to understand both A) Why people who see strange things are so willing to attribute it to be Alien in nature, and B) Why people who haven't seen them are so willing to accept that that is in fact what other people have seen?

I can understand believing that they have seen SOMETHING, but why the ready acceptance of the definition?

I think it is a cultural problem. Before the 20th century, people associated unidentified sightings with angels or saints. Still now people see Jesus in a tortilla or the Virgin Mary in a stained window.
From the second half of the 20th century, science fiction movies and TV shows made popular the idea of ETs. Nothing more natural that people started to associate unidentified sightings to aliens instead of angels.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The notion there might be life on other planets came up very soon after Galileo studied the moon and found the moons of Jupiter. Since the moon turned out to have a very imperfect surface, in contradiction to the Aristotelian concepts about the perfection of heavenly bodies, and since the moons of Jupiter surprised everyone, there being no mention of them in the Bible or Aristotle, the next step was to speculate that other heavenly bodies could well be inhabited just like earth.

Eventually someone hoaxed having discovered life on the moon through a telescope. This hoax was reported as fact in many newpapers during it's short life, but it helped to spread the notion of life elsewhere.

Then there was the misunderstanding about the "canals" of Mars. I believe the person who first saw and described them meant the term very loosely, just as a descriptive one, but it got taken literally as a report of intentionally manufactured canals, leading to rumors of current or past life there.

H.G Wells is the one who really set the idea of ET in peoples minds with War Of The Worlds, essentially a creative expansion out from the canal thing. I would imagine all subsequent ascribing of unexplained aerial phenomena to beings from another planet is due to Wells.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think SGT makes the key point: Reports have been around for centuries but the explanation keeps changing names according to the culture and era.

 

[SGT]

I mean no offence but that is a stunningly egocentric observation, or homosapienscentric would be more accurate. Prove we are the "centre" of the universe and I'll deny inevitabiltiy of life elsewhere in it

Earth is not unique IMO, and atm it is just that, I don't see how a trillion star systems would alow just one Earth. It's fairly unfeasable. Again I'm hypothesising, but it's not a bad hypothesis to supose life is out there elsewhere.

There are two different issues here: life and civilization.
The abundance and diversity of life on Earth suggests that it is inevitable. Life will probably arise in any suitable environment. Once life appears, evolution will take place and life will spread to fill every possible niche.
I am not sure if intelligence and civilization are inevitable. Present life on Earth is the result of five mass extinctions. If those extinctions did not happen when they did, present life would probably be very different.
Two of these extinctions where fundamental to the appearance of humans on Earth: The Cambrian and the Cretaceous.
The Cambrian fauna was dominated by invertebrates. Some of them were fierce predators. In the Cambrian appeared the first cordate, the Pichaia, probable ancestor of all vertebrates, from fishes to humans. The Pichaia was a small animal, that protected itself against the predators by hiding in the mud at the bottom of the ocean. A very unlikely habitat for producing complex organisms.
With the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian, the predators were almost wiped off and the cordates were able to get out of the closet and evolve, giving origin to fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
The Cretaceous was dominated by the dinosaurs. The mammals were small, timid animals, that were no match for the great reptilians. The extinction of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago allowed the evolution of mammals, culminating with the appearance of homo sapiens.
Could intelligence arise in other species? We don't know! But it is not likely that a strong predator would have any evolutionary advantage by being intelligent. Sharks have changed very little in the last 300 million years. They are so suited to their environment that there is no evolutionary pressure for their evolution.
Besides, we don't know if intelligence will lead inevitably to civilization. Dolphins are quite intelligent, but living in an aquatic environment they can't use fire. No fire, no metallurgy, no civilization. It is possible that in other worlds intelligent beings appeared and did not develop a technological civilization.
Finally, once a species evolves and creates a civilization, how long will it exist? Forty years ago our civilization almost destroyed itself in a nuclear war. Now we are trying very hard to destroy the environment with pollution and global warming. Should other intelligent beings be wiser than us? we don't really know.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Of course not, there's no reason to believe that aliens would be wiser than us, more technologically advanced doesn't mean wiser it just means more powerful weapons with which to anhialate your own species.

I suspect technology is somewhat dependant on an aggresive nature, war and or competition often sees quantum leaps(quite literally in the 20th century) that lead to significant technological advancement. We maybe lucky and meet an alien that has "grown up" and put away petty bickering and politcal deviency. On the other hand they could be just like us and colonise our world, subjugating those who don't follow their beliefs and supplanting our religion and government with the Zanubian home worlds one true way? Who knows

And I don't really believe you have to have mass extinctions for intelligent life to arise, there are many reasons why intelligent life might arise other than mass extinctions. A world with violent weather changes, scarce food seasons, high competition amongst predators. The list is pretty endless. Intelligent life I believe is almost as inevitable given the right conditions as life itself, it's simply a matter of time scale or a matter of time.

 

[SGT]

Of course not, there's no reason to believe that aliens would be wiser than us, more technologically advanced doesn't mean wiser it just means more powerful weapons with which to anhialate your own species.

I suspect technology is somewhat dependant on an aggresive nature, war and or competition often sees quantum leaps(quite literally in the 20th century) that lead to significant technological advancement. We maybe lucky and meet an alien that has "grown up" and put away petty bickering and politcal deviency. On the other hand they could be just like us and colonise our world, subjugating those who don't follow their beliefs and supplanting our religion and government with the Zanubian home worlds one true way? Who knows

And I don't really believe you have to have mass extinctions for intelligent life to arise, there are many reasons why intelligent life might arise other than mass extinctions. A world with violent weather changes, scarce food seasons, high competition amongst predators. The list is pretty endless. Intelligent life I believe is almost as inevitable given the right conditions as life itself, it's simply a matter of time scale or a matter of time.

Of course mass extinctions are not necessary for the evolving of intelligence. But they were necessary for the evolving of OUR intelligence.
I agree with you that intelligence is an attribute of predators. A complex brain needs a lot of energy, that is only available by taking proteins (supposing that alien life is similar enough to ours and use proteins as building material). But very strong predators don't need intelligence. Sharks don't need and T.Rex would not need either. Your assumption of high competition is right in my opinion.
You have touched an important point: the matter of time.
Life exists on Earth for 3.5 billion years. Intelligence is here for a mere 1.5 million years (0.05% of the total). Civilization arose some 10000 years ago and technology is 200 years old. How long will it last?
The Universe is 13.5 billion years old. First generation stars lacked the complex elements necessary to life, but we can suppose that much prior to the formation of the solar system there existed stars with planets where life could arise. In all that time many civilizations can be born and die. The great question is: if technological civilizations are short lived can two or more of them coexist in the Universe?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah that's what I was driving at with the time and timescale thing. One small thing though technology has been around for at least as long as humans have been around and probably a lot longer. Unless you don't consider tool making, hunting(weapon making and use), writing, engineering skills as technologies

I saw a conservative estimate put 1 intelligent life existent at anyone time per galaxy at anyone time, and this is without knowing if life is more common than we think or a half a zillion unknowable variables.I'd say with this conservative estimate with a billion galaxies out there, there are a fair few million life forms probably that exist now and a few hundred thousand intelligent ones, that's fairly likely IMO. It's also not beyond the realms of reason to think that sometimes the existence of one coincides with the existence of another in a galaxy, and even in fairly close proximity. Let's not forget if we colonise other worlds, long after this one has been incinerated by our own sun, the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy (an event which with the sparsity of systems in a galaxy will be unlikely to disturb much existent life and which will lead to a larger eliptical galaxy) There are far larger older galaxies than our own that are made up of far more stars, we may not have met ET yet, but someone or something out there probably has: EZ though, Extra Zanubian obviously

 

[SGT]

Yeah that's what I was driving at with the time and timescale thing. One small thing though technology has been around for at least as long as humans have been around and probably a lot longer. Unless you don't consider tool making, hunting(weapon making and use), writing, engineering skills as technologies

When I say technological civilization, I mean a civilization capable to communicate with an extra planetary one. Human beings have known radio for less than 200 years and have sent a probe that will leave the solar system some 30 years ago.

I saw a conservative estimate put 1 intelligent life existent at anyone time per galaxy at anyone time, and this is without knowing if life is more common than we think or a half a zillion unknowable variables. I'd say with this conservative estimate with a billion galaxies out there, there are a fair few million life forms probably that exist now and a few hundred thousand intelligent ones, that's fairly likely IMO. It's also not beyond the realms of reason to think that sometimes the existence of one coincides with the existence of another in a galaxy, and even in fairly close proximity. Let's not forget if we colonise other worlds, long after this one has been incinerated by our own sun, the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy (an event which with the sparsity of systems in a galaxy will be unlikely to disturb much existent life and which will lead to a larger eliptical galaxy) There are far larger older galaxies than our own that are made up of far more stars, we may not have met ET yet, but someone or something out there probably has: EZ though, Extra Zanubian obviously

I have read uch an article, written by Angie Feazel at THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC Volume 1, Number 4 - November 1989.
Using a lifetime of 10000 years for a civilization after it acquires the capacity to communicate extraplanetarily, the author arrives at an estimate of 1.56 civilizations per galaxy.
There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe, but unless our present knowledge of physics is extremely wrong, it is not probable that communication could make an intergalactic jump.

 

[zoobyshoe]

On the subject of extra-terrestrial life:

Scientists find liquid water on Enceladus

By ALICIA CHANG - Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Cassini spacecraft has found evidence of liquid water spewing from geysers on one of Saturn’s icy moons, raising the tantalizing possibility that the celestial object harbors life.

The surprising discovery excited some scientists, who say the Saturn moon, Enceladus, should be added to the short list of places within the solar system most likely to have extraterrestrial life.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Space/2006/03/09/1480282-ap.html

 

[kahless2005]

I voted May exist for Bigfoot. There are a lot of eye witness accounts all across the world, with startling accuracy to the claims.

I voted Aliens may exist, not confirmed Earth visits. I mean why would an advanced civilization want to come and shove probes up our butts? I thik that we are too primative for them and therefore they don't waste their time with us.

I voted Ghosts may exist, there are a lot of bogus claims and myths on this subject, but there are also a lot of unexpalined events. ie Gozer the Gosariean!

 

[ptabor]

I think it is a cultural problem. Before the 20th century, people associated unidentified sightings with angels or saints. Still now people see Jesus in a tortilla or the Virgin Mary in a stained window.
From the second half of the 20th century, science fiction movies and TV shows made popular the idea of ETs. Nothing more natural that people started to associate unidentified sightings to aliens instead of angels.

Perhaps it was always aliens?

 

[SGT]

Perhaps it was always aliens?

And perhaps what is now believed to be spaceships are angels.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And perhaps what is now believed to be spaceships are angels.

SGT, I don't know what kind of television service you have access to, but you would greatly enjoy a series of debunking programs that are often aired on The National Geographic Channel on US cable television.

A show on the chupacabra was very enlightening concerning people's desire to believe, even in horrible things, and unwillingness to let go of beliefs even in the face of scientific proof.

A farmer somewhere in Latin America shot at a "chupacabra" and a few days later found a somewhat decomposed corpse which he recognized as the beast he'd shot at. He told the police and the corpse was taken to a university lab for examination. The whole exam was filmed and they showed footage of the scientists looking at the corpse.

Well, it was just a dog. They recognized it at first glance despite it being half decayed but went throught the proper identification proceedure anyway and showed the film crew all the important ways it matched dog specimens they had on file.

The public, however, was enraged at their conclusion and they received many threats and accusations that they were engaged in a cover-up. One of the examiners said this has happened over and over again each time they get something and determine it isn't anything unusual. He said he was glad he lived in the city, and not in the rural areas where these reports and corpses come from because he's authentically afraid some of these rural people would harm him for saying it isn't some kind of alien or lab created mutation.

 

[SGT]

SGT, I don't know what kind of television service you have access to, but you would greatly enjoy a series of debunking programs that are often aired on The National Geographic Channel on US cable television.

A show on the chupacabra was very enlightening concerning people's desire to believe, even in horrible things, and unwillingness to let go of beliefs even in the face of scientific proof.

A farmer somewhere in Latin America shot at a "chupacabra" and a few days later found a somewhat decomposed corpse which he recognized as the beast he'd shot at. He told the police and the corpse was taken to a university lab for examination. The whole exam was filmed and they showed footage of the scientists looking at the corpse.

Well, it was just a dog. They recognized it at first glance despite it being half decayed but went throught the proper identification proceedure anyway and showed the film crew all the important ways it matched dog specimens they had on file.

The public, however, was enraged at their conclusion and they received many threats and accusations that they were engaged in a cover-up. One of the examiners said this has happened over and over again each time they get something and determine it isn't anything unusual. He said he was glad he lived in the city, and not in the rural areas where these reports and corpses come from because he's authentically afraid some of these rural people would harm him for saying it isn't some kind of alien or lab created mutation.

Thank you for the information. My cable service features Nat Geo. Since they air a lot of reprises, I will probably be able to see it in the near future.

 

[my_wan]

Funny ghost got more votes than bigfoot

If even 1 spacefaring race managed to colonize mutiliple worlds it would not only greatly improve long term chances of survival but withing a few million years they would essentially own at least the galaxy, even with the present limitations in physics as we know them. Such a race would likely posses godlike powers in our estimation. What are the odds this hasn't already happened? However unlikely it's certainly not 0. Such a race would be unlikely to depend on a planet for providing life support, only raw materials.

Point is that even though by far the greatest probability is that we are essentially alone at least in this galaxy the possibilities are more outrageous than we can possibly imagine. We suffer culture shock just moving around within our own societies and we want to pretend we can intellectualize races millions of years more advanced. It's fun to try though