UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[nismaratwork]

Jreelawg, Nismar and I were making so much progress. We had gotten rid of all of the conspiratorial thinking, had removed the mystical coverings, and had settled on a thin line where conjecture need not impart undue strain on fact.

...and then you post this...

*the sound of hope dying*

 

[alt]

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

 

[nismaratwork]

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

 

[alt]

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

Well, yes, possible - 'enough is as good as a feast', as my old dad used to say !

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, yes, possible - 'enough is as good as a feast', as my old dad used to say !

Exactly! Remember, if there is no interference from authorities, then they have the added benefit of literally having no link to the "conspiracy" theories! Now, one example where you and Jared are clearly RIGHT, is the issue of Area 51; not that it's anything special, but the focus on it. It seems clear that the work done there has been moved to a number of different regions, but as long as public focus remains on this iconic area... so much the better.

There's also the possibility that as much as there is no need for even the smallest amount of conspiracy or organized action, that someone (other than Orson Welles) would still take advantage of this public readiness to perceive a vast conspiracy of alien or terrestrial origin. Who knows... stranger things have happened, but I still tend towards Flex's view of this one.

 

[alt]

Exactly! Remember, if there is no interference from authorities, then they have the added benefit of literally having no link to the "conspiracy" theories! Now, one example where you and Jared are clearly RIGHT, is the issue of Area 51; not that it's anything special, but the focus on it. It seems clear that the work done there has been moved to a number of different regions, but as long as public focus remains on this iconic area... so much the better.

There's also the possibility that as much as there is no need for even the smallest amount of conspiracy or organized action, that someone (other than Orson Welles) would still take advantage of this public readiness to perceive a vast conspiracy of alien or terrestrial origin.

I have heard so much conjecture over 'area 51, seen so many links, so many books, that I don't believe I've ever read one page - opened one link .. upon the presumption that if there was anything to it, particularly of the purported import, we would hear and know ZIP about it.

Who knows... stranger things have happened, but I still tend towards Flex's view of this one.

Yikes ! Mr Gunship will be along any moment now, to lament how we've skuttled his recent 'considerable' progress .. sorry Fkex ..

 

[Andre]

For what's worth I have had numerous talks with a good friend and colleague in the USAF who flew the F-117 in the secret period. From the many anecdotes he told I infer that the secrecy went to great lenghts and I would not be surprized if some officials were very happy with the alien-ufo twist.

 

[jreelawg]

What is an alternative scenario that includes ET visitation but excludes FTL?

PROJECT LONGSHOT

AN UNMANNED PROBE TO ALPHA CENTAURI​

...
"The probe would be assembled at the space station and take approximately 100 years to reach the nearest star"

...
"Our Probe will be a completely autonomous design based upon a combination of current technology and technological advances which can reasonably be expected to be developed over the next 20 to 30 years. The expected launch date is the next century with a transit time of 100 years."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007533_1989007533.pdf

 

[Andre]

Isn't that a bit of a longshot?

For that, I think, you'd have to extend the Drake Equation with another factor limiting the range to an infinitesimal small fraction, if it wasn't meaningless in the first place.

Speaking of which, I think that the number of terrestrial planet suitable of bearing life does not deal with going though the "chaotic zone", which is likely to harass any life processes on that planet. So than number may be much smaller still.

 

[FlexGunship]

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

No.

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

Yes.

Yikes ! Mr Gunship will be along any moment now, to lament how we've skuttled his recent...

To you buddy, that's MR. GUNSH--- oh, er, nevermind...

Isn't that a bit of a longshot?

Wow... I can't believe I laughed at that.

 

[Andre]

Wow... I can't believe I laughed at that.

Beware of the hidden humor

 

[jreelawg]

A few hundred years isn't that big of a deal. It may be that in X amount of years man will have probes in many solar systems.

ET's may have been deploying interstellar probes for thousands of years for all we know.

 

[Andre]

Hmm maybe we should get out some numbers. Let's see about that drake equation again. Not that it can be anywhere near accurate, lacking real data, it's just guess work but:

Current estimates (see below):

...(so two communicative civilizations exist in our galaxy at any given time, on average, plus two hundred more that are not trying to communicate)...
(or)
...Alternatively, making some more optimistic assumptions,... = 20,000 (there's quite a few civilizations, although the closest one would still be about 1500 light years away).

-however-

Current estimates of the parameters ...
R*... = 2.31 civilisations ( in our galaxy spanning 100,000 light years)

So what are the changes of finding anything in a few hundred years conventional travelling, covering a few light years?

 

[mugaliens]

No, and we debunked this one long ago. That is the view from a US jet, not a Mig.

And that has what bearing, exactly (if any) on the filmed object?

You're missing my point complete, Ivan, not to mention my post in this thread where I further debunked the claims in the YouTube video concerning ridiculous accelerations, etc.

Check fire! Check fire! You're targeting a friendly - I'm against UFOs, not for them!

 

[jreelawg]

Hmm maybe we should get out some numbers. Let's see about that drake equation again. Not that it can be anywhere near accurate, lacking real data, it's just guess work but:
So what are the changes of finding anything in a few hundred years conventional travelling, covering a few light years?

The drake equation is like you said just guess work, and exceptionally bad guess work at that.

As far as the evidence goes, we know that 1/1 solar systems we know much about have intelligent life capable of communication and space travel.

 

[nismaratwork]

And that has what bearing, exactly (if any) on the filmed object?

You're missing my point complete, Ivan, not to mention my post in this thread where I further debunked the claims in the YouTube video concerning ridiculous accelerations, etc.

Check fire! Check fire! You're targeting a friendly - I'm against UFOs, not for them!

Another victim of blue-on-blue... *takes off hat* Mugaliens... we knew him well.

Jreelawg: I see a big difference between firing a 100 year probe to a star, and sending a maneuverable craft that will enter the atmosphere of an exoplanet. Even greater is the disparity when you make it a round trip with living beings involved...

 

[jreelawg]

Jreelawg: I see a big difference between firing a 100 year probe to a star, and sending a maneuverable craft that will enter the atmosphere of an exoplanet. Even greater is the disparity when you make it a round trip with living beings involved...

Yeah, but humans have been at this space travel thing for a relatively very short time.

You could imagine after 200 years of technological advancement, or how about 100,000 years of further advancement, or even maybe 1,000,000 more years, heck why not make it a cool billion?

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, but humans have been at this space travel thing for a relatively very short time.

You could imagine after 200 years of technological advancement, or how about 100,000 years of further advancement, or even maybe 1,000,000 more years, heck why not make it a cool billion?

Imagine us in 200 years... that's a very good question. I don't know what the next 200 years holds, but it would seem that climate change will play a role (man made or not, forget the origin). I can image a century or two in which the generation of energy, and its storage plays an enormous role in how we proceed, along with other issues such as population control.

IN 100,000 years... well, that's a very long time. Here's a question: what are the chances that a serious impact event or VEI7 or VEI8 will take care of the human issue by then, or that in the search for ever greater sources of energy we don't avoid the tragedies that might have been with atomic research? A million years, and you've DEFINITELY been hit by major impact events, gone through ice-ages and tropical periods, and experienced serious vulcanism. A billion... isn't worth considering.

Your counterpoint could be that in 100,000 years we could protect our planet, manage climate, and ease volcanoes without eruptions. Maybe so, but the history of life, and humans included is not some perfect linear increase in population and technology. I would bet on the human race being extinct loooooong before we're "buzzing" exoplanets, never mind ones we've determined are inhabited by a technologically advanced civilization. Your argument at best, cancels itself out, and at worst it argues for our extinction.

You can't make an argument for alien curiosity and capability by adding orders of magnitude to the time they've been around, because time and uncertainty go hand in hand. What reason does a civilization that has achieved control of their planet, defeated disease and social problems, impact events, vulcanism, etc... and colonized anything nearby want to do with distant stars? These same creatures need to be advanced, but undetectable by us, have an interest in hiding from us (but not enough to remain out of range of hillbillies, fighter pilots, and whole cities) and seem to take and offer nothing?

I don't need to speculate about time; that is a strange way of behaving unless you posit FTL travel of the sci-fi type, and then we're no longer talking about the same universe. Why travel for hundreds or thousands of years... possibly in a generational fashion... just to do what ETs supposedly have done? What, literally, on Earth can we offer to satisfy curiosity or a need that these aliens couldn't take, bargain for, or move on?

 

[jreelawg]

You can't make an argument for alien curiosity and capability by adding orders of magnitude to the time they've been around, because time and uncertainty go hand in hand. What reason does a civilization that has achieved control of their planet, defeated disease and social problems, impact events, vulcanism, etc... and colonized anything nearby want to do with distant stars? These same creatures need to be advanced, but undetectable by us, have an interest in hiding from us (but not enough to remain out of range of hillbillies, fighter pilots, and whole cities) and seem to take and offer nothing?

Once we develop the fusion technology we're after, and make some more advances in autonomous systems, the technology could theoretically sustain and multiply all on it's own. These advances could make colonization very practical.

I admit, that colonization of a distant star system might be a long, long ways away. However, sending a system of autonomous probes would hardly be a stretch. What they might want could be as simple as what we expect to get out of our probes, to beam back information. Heck, at the least they would be able to intercept our broadcasting, and watch our television.

A better question than why, is why not.

 

[jreelawg]

An example of why colonization of a new solar system might be motivated, would be to escape home-sol persecution. Maybe some solar system is bustling with waring colonies. Maybe at some point, a colony decides they want to find a new solar system where they will be free from oppression?

 

[nismaratwork]

Once we develop the fusion technology we're after, and make some more advances in autonomous systems, the technology could theoretically sustain and multiply all on it's own. These advances could make colonization very practical.

I admit, that colonization of a distant star system might be a long, long ways away. However, sending a system of autonomous probes would hardly be a stretch. What they might want could be as simple as what we expect to get out of our probes, to beam back information. Heck, at the least they would be able to intercept our broadcasting, and watch our television.

A better question than why, is why not.

Fusion is a looooooooooo... ooooo... oooooong way off. Sustaining a reaction may be within a decade or so, but developing a blanket that absorbs enough neutrons to make it worthwhile, AND produced enough tritium to keep the reaction going? Long time. Add to that the issue of materials becoming brittle from neutron bombardment, and I'd bet on us being dead before fusion. In fact, I'd bet that we could develop workable settlements on Mars first, and who would venture beyond their star system before they bothered to colonize local planets?

 

[jreelawg]

Fusion is a looooooooooo... ooooo... oooooong way off. Sustaining a reaction may be within a decade or so, but developing a blanket that absorbs enough neutrons to make it worthwhile, AND produced enough tritium to keep the reaction going? Long time. Add to that the issue of materials becoming brittle from neutron bombardment, and I'd bet on us being dead before fusion. In fact, I'd bet that we could develop workable settlements on Mars first, and who would venture beyond their star system before they bothered to colonize local planets?

Why do you keep suggesting we're going to go extinct. I'd bet intelligent life on Earth outlives it's planet, but that's another story.

As for the issue of heading for a random star, and the likeliness you would find intelligent life there.

Using our own experience as an example, we could set the date of radio-visibility for Earth as December 12, 1901, when Guglielmo Marconi sent radio signals from Cornwall, England, to Newfoundland, Canada.[60] Visibility is now ending, or at least becoming orders of magnitude more difficult, as analog TV is being phased out. And so, if our experience is typical, a civilization remains radio-visible for approximately a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Empirical_resolution_attempts

So if we became radio visual in 1901, nearby stars could have realized some years later influencing their decision to choose the Sun. If they are from a nearby solar system, they could theoretically have made it here by 1947.

 

[FlexGunship]

Guys, I don't see the merit in following this line of thinking much farther. As to Jreelaws point about 1/1 solar systems supporting life, I would look at it a bit more pragmatically: 1/4 bodies in the habitible region support life, and only 4 out of hundreds are even in the habitable zone.

The argument from evidence is 1 in hundreds or thousands, not 1 in 1. Furthermore, we've only observed one closely anyway. If we were to carry your conclusion to its logical end, Jreelawg, (since we formed in 1/1 solar systems) that we mustve formed in all solar systems.

The argument is weak even from an academic point of view.

 

[nismaratwork]

Guys, I don't see the merit in following this line of thinking much farther. As to Jreelaws point about 1/1 solar systems supporting life, I would look at it a bit more pragmatically: 1/4 bodies in the habitible region support life, and only 4 out of hundreds are even in the habitable zone.

The argument from evidence is 1 in hundreds or thousands, not 1 in 1. Furthermore, we've only observed one closely anyway. If we were to carry your conclusion to its logical end, Jreelawg, (since we formed in 1/1 solar systems) that we mustve formed in all solar systems.

The argument is weak even from an academic point of view.

Agreed... I can't believe I've let myself get this diverted over something so contrived. *facepalm*

 

[jreelawg]

What about the possibility that a solar system like ours, could have different eras where different planets are habitable.

The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land. The increase in solar temperatures is such that already in about a billion years, the surface of the Earth will become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.[91][92]
Following the red giant phase, intense thermal pulsations will cause the Sun to throw off its outer layers, forming a planetary nebula. The only object that will remain after the outer layers are ejected is the extremely hot stellar core, which will slowly cool and fade as a white dwarf over many billions of years. This stellar evolution scenario is typical of low- to medium-mass stars.[93][94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

Maybe Venus was a suitable planet before the Earth was, and maybe at some point, a different planet or moon in our solar system will be habitable after Earth dies.

 

[Chronos]

Mars is a very good candidate for conditions favorable to life in the early solar system. Venus is not.

 

[jreelawg]

Here is another very interesting link.

A Self-Reproducing Interstellar Probe

Robert A. Freitas Jr.

100 Buckingham Drive, No. 253, Santa Clara, California 95051, USA.
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 33, pp. 251-264 1980.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/ReproJBISJuly1980.htm

and

Project Daedalus - The mission profile
BOND, A | MARTIN, A R
British Interplanetary Society, Journal. Vol. 29, pp. 101-112. Feb. 1976
...
The nominal mission which this vehicle is called upon to perform is a journey to about 6 light years distance, in about 49 years, at a final cruising velocity of 12.8% of the speed of light.

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A7618970AH&q=project+daedalus&uid=788304424&setcookie=yes

 

[nismaratwork]

Mars is a very good candidate for conditions favorable to life in the early solar system. Venus is not.

Speak for yourself, I like sucking H2SO4 in heat that melts lead and crushing atmosphere. You enjoy your freewheeling martian lifestyle, REAL men may not be from Venus, but we go there to "toughen up".

Jreelawg: This is just a pet peeve of mine, but there is only ONE "Solar System"... ours. Our primary is called "Sol", and this is the "Solar" system. Another star with planets is another system, but not a Solar system. I know... very useless in this context, but this Hollywood faux pas thread has me feeling feisty.

 

[alt]

Yikes ! I don't know what to think about this (very thread related) Reuters story;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915

 

[nismaratwork]

Yikes ! I don't know what to think about this (very thread related) Reuters story;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915

If I were to float a guess, I'd say that disrupting the ability to launch nuclear weapons would be a priority for any world power, right? Well, let's put aside the "object", and think along these lines:

-Interfering with the missiles of a country other than your own in a test is could start a war.
-You CANNOT let this kind of program be anything less than black.
-People in high positions within the base are going to notice malfunctions if the system works.
Then we fork:
1.) The "disk" is actually the device which is causing the disruption, and there's no way to hide it.
2.) The "disk" is something mundane put in place to create a "chaff" story.

Now, which makes for a better story: 'Missiles malfunction, and we have no idea why!"
OR
"Flying disk seen overhead, and missiles malfunction... what do you think public?!"

The former is going to terrify EVERYONE, because the concept of malfunctioning launch systems or missiles is... well... terrifying. The latter, without telling a single story to confirm or deny any part of this, clutters the narrative. Conspiracy theorists can go in one direction, ET fanciers might consider that this is one of the few things an "alien" WOULD want to interfere with, and people like me will lean towards this being an intentional, but illegal under treaties, program.

The alternative is that this is total nonsense, people lying to cover mistakes out of fear that they'll lose their jobs... etc. I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

edit: I suppose it could be a weather phenomenon, but as I can't imagine a lenticular cloud having an effect on missile launch systems.

 

[alt]

If I were to float a guess, I'd say that disrupting the ability to launch nuclear weapons would be a priority for any world power, right? Well, let's put aside the "object", and think along these lines:

-Interfering with the missiles of a country other than your own in a test is could start a war.
-You CANNOT let this kind of program be anything less than black.
-People in high positions within the base are going to notice malfunctions if the system works.
Then we fork:
1.) The "disk" is actually the device which is causing the disruption, and there's no way to hide it.
2.) The "disk" is something mundane put in place to create a "chaff" story.

Now, which makes for a better story: 'Missiles malfunction, and we have no idea why!"
OR
"Flying disk seen overhead, and missiles malfunction... what do you think public?!"

The former is going to terrify EVERYONE, because the concept of malfunctioning launch systems or missiles is... well... terrifying. The latter, without telling a single story to confirm or deny any part of this, clutters the narrative. Conspiracy theorists can go in one direction, ET fanciers might consider that this is one of the few things an "alien" WOULD want to interfere with, and people like me will lean towards this being an intentional, but illegal under treaties, program.

The alternative is that this is total nonsense, people lying to cover mistakes out of fear that they'll lose their jobs... etc. I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

edit: I suppose it could be a weather phenomenon, but as I can't imagine a lenticular cloud having an effect on missile launch systems.

Interesting perspectives. I got to cogitate on this for a while ..

 

[jreelawg]

Bennewitz had stopped his schooling when he had nearly received a Ph.D. in physics. Instead, he focused his energies towards Thunder Scientific Corporation, a company which manufactured high-altitude testing equipment mostly for use at Kirtland Air Force Base.

For many years, Bennewitz had been interested in UFOs, and had conducted his own investigations into the subject. He became convinced that the so-called Cattle mutilations were due to aliens after he met Myrna Hansen, who was hypnotized by University of Wyoming psychologist R. Leo Sprinkle. Under hypnosis, Hansen offered a detailed account of being kidnapped by aliens and taken to an underground base in what she thought was New Mexico;.There, Hansen says, she saw many liquid-filled vats containing portions of cattle and human remains. (Bennewitz would later accuse Sprinkle of being a CIA agent, and have nothing more to do with him).

Based on this and other evidence, Bennewitz claimed to have uncovered the fact that aliens were controlling humans through electromagnetic devices, and furthermore claimed that UFOs were regularly flying near Kirtland and the nearby Manzano Nuclear Weapons Storage Facility and Coyote Canyon Test Area. He provided photos of an alleged UFO flying near Coyote Canyon at Kirtland Air Force Base.

After concluding that aliens were in fact active on earth, Bennewitz detailed his assertions to the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, who regarded him as a deluded paranoid. He then wrote to Air Force Sergeant Richard C. Doty in October 1980 and reported his various claims. Realising that Bennewitz had, as James Mosely writes, "grossly misinterpreted" the information from some "supposedly secure communications systems," Kirtland AFB authorities sent Doty to investigate. [1]

A few days after receiving his letter, Doty and Air Force scientist Jerry Miller interviewed Bennewitz at his home. He showed them his elaborate equipment setup designed to photograph, film and otherwise monitor the supposed UFOs.

One of the curiosities of the case is that Bennewitz seems to have photographed some genuinely unexplained aerial phenomena: Clark cites an Air Force memorandum released via the Freedom of Information Act, which reports, "after analyzing the data collected by Dr. BENNEWITZ, Mr. MILLER related the evidence clearly shows some type of unidentified aerial objects were caught on film; however, no conclusion could be made whether these objects pose a threat to the Manzano/Coyote Canyon areas." (Clark 1998, 146)

Bennewitz was invited to Kirtland AFB on November 10, 1980, to present his findings to a small conference of Air Force officers and scientists. One week later, writes Clark, Air Force officials told Bennewitz they would not be investigating his evidence any further.

For most of the 1980s, Doty and/or ufologist William Moore would relate mostly spurious information to Bennewitz as part of a disinformation campaign designed to distract him from secret military projects at Kirtland. The result was that, over the years, Bennewitz grew ever more paranoid, and his health deteriorated so badly that he had a nervous breakdown.

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

The story of this guy is interesting, but I don't know how to verify its authenticity.

 

[jreelawg]

Speak for yourself, I like sucking H2SO4 in heat that melts lead and crushing atmosphere. You enjoy your freewheeling martian lifestyle, REAL men may not be from Venus, but we go there to "toughen up".

Jreelawg: This is just a pet peeve of mine, but there is only ONE "Solar System"... ours. Our primary is called "Sol", and this is the "Solar" system. Another star with planets is another system, but not a Solar system. I know... very useless in this context, but this Hollywood faux pas thread has me feeling feisty.

I got the idea from this link.

Professor Fred Taylor, from Oxford University's Department of Physics, one of the Venus Express mission leaders, said:

"It is now becoming clear why the climate on Venus is so different from the Earth, when the planets themselves are otherwise quite similar.

"These differences are not just down to Venus being closer to the sun, we now know that the lack of a protective magnetic field and the differing planetary rotation rates also play a role in ensuring that many of the atmospheric processes we observe on Earth occur at a much faster rate on Venus.

"Our new data make it possible to construct a scenario in which Venus started out like the Earth - possibly including a habitable environment, billions of years ago - and then evolved to the state we see now."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-497417/Venus-Earths-twin-supported-life.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I got the idea from this link.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-497417/Venus-Earths-twin-supported-life.html

I understand, much as Mars may have been Earth-like and evolved to be the relatively barren wasteland it is now. The difference is that one is suitable in a foreseeable future (hundreds of years) for colonization, but Venus, barring a miracle, is a death-trap.

 

[Andre]

Pertaining the discussion about the chances of sustainability of life forms on planets, I mentioned:

Isn't that a bit of a longshot?

For that, I think, you'd have to extend the Drake Equation with another factor limiting the range to an infinitesimal small fraction, if it wasn't meaningless in the first place.

Speaking of which, I think that the number of terrestrial planet suitable of bearing life does not deal with going though the "chaotic zone", which is likely to harass any life processes on that planet. So than number may be much smaller still.

Other than the humor behind 'longshot', the essence of this post has not been addressed, it seems. So maybe some elaboration would help.

The chaotic zone ideas would imply that a planet would need a sizeable moon like Earth in order to stabilize its spin to avoid chaotic pertubations eventually. This would preclude relatively stable climate zones, which are likely necesary to devellop higher life forms. To my knowledge, this has not been considered before in the Drake equation discussions.

This would likely reduce the current estimates of higher alien life forms develloping, with a couple of orders of magnitudes.

 

[jreelawg]

Pertaining the discussion about the chances of sustainability of life, I mentioned:
Other than the humor behind 'longshot', the essence of this post has not been addressed, it seems. So maybe some elaboration would help.

The chaotic zone ideas would imply that a planet would need a sizeable moon like Earth in order to stabilize its spin to avoid chaotic pertubations eventually. This would preclude relative stable climate zones, which are likely necesary to devellop higher life forms. To my knowledge, this has not been considered before in the Drake equation discussions.

This would likely reduce the current estimated chances of higher forms develloping, with a couple of orders of magnitudes.

Do you have a link?

Explain how you would incorporate this idea, and how you would ascribe values for the other variables?

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[3]
[edit]

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

They're wondering how likely it is they will pick up alien signals with SETI. You can already take the likeliness down a lot by the idea that current estimates of radio visibility are only about 100 years.

It suggests that it would be unlikely for advanced civilizations to be able to hear each other, even if they exist at the same time, in nearby locations in the galaxy.

It doesn't estimate the odds civilizations exist at the same time. And if it did, and you factor in the idea that Von Neuman machines can theoretically colonize the whole galaxy. And if you estimate that civilizations could theoretically last billions of years, you get different numbers, even if you postulated that only a small portion of civilizations capable of lasting billions of years will.

 

[Andre]

Do you have a link?

Sure

The Moon has had dramatic effects on our planet and the life that inhabits it, researchers believe. The Moon stabilizes Earth's rotation, for example, preventing otherwise dramatic movements of the poles that would fuel climate swings that some scientists figure might have doomed any chance for life to form, let alone evolve.

And again, to my knowledge, nowhere in the Drake equation discussion about estimated values is this factor addressed.

 

[jreelawg]

And again, to my knowledge, nowhere in the Drake equation discussion about estimated values is this factor addressed.

Also, the Rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare, has advanced a set of arguments based on the Drake equation that the number of planets or satellites that could support life is small, and quite possibly limited to Earth alone; in this case, the estimate of ne would be infinitesimal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Current_estimates_of_the_parameters

Large moon
The Moon is unusual because the other rocky planets in the Solar System either have no satellites (Mercury and Venus), or have tiny satellites that are probably captured asteroids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#Large_moon

 

[Andre]

That's exactly my point, the elaboration in the drake stuff does not address explicitely the spin axis stabilization effect of the moon. Note that the Drake equation is much older than this research to the 'chaotic zone'. So this is a new element of consideral importance and the failure to mention it, suggest that it was not included in the consideration.

 

[jreelawg]

That's exactly my point, the elaboration in the drake stuff does not address explicitely the spin axis stabilization effect of the moon. Note that the Drake equation is much older than this research to the 'chaotic zone'. So this is a new element of consideral importance and the failure to mention it, suggest that it was not included in the consideration.

It doesn't matter how old the drake equation is, new values can be plugged in for various factors. This 'chaotic zone' factor, would just be considered when coming up with values. So you can say what if the Earth is very rare because of the 'chaotic zone' factor?

You could go as far as some of the scientists mentioned in your link, and guess the Earth's' moon condition is so rare, that Earth may be the only planet that ever existed to have supported life.

 

[Andre]

That's not the point. Unless explicitely mentioned one can safely assume that it HAS not been considered and if it had, it would have virtually elimated any chance of the existence of intelligent ET in the galaxy, whether or not you call it the Drake equation or whatever.

 

[jreelawg]

That's not the point. Unless explicitely mentioned one can safely assume that it HAS not been considered and if it had, it would have virtually elimated any chance of the existence of intelligent ET in the galaxy, whether or not you call it the Drake equation or whatever.

I don't understand. People do consider it, and some have come to the hypothesis that Earth may be the only planet in the galaxy capable of harboring intelligent life. It doesn't make their wild speculation right. You might as well say, that if the god factor was considered, it would virtually eliminate the chance of blah blah blah.

Whatever hypothetical you want to incorporate you can.

 

[alt]

If I were to float a guess, I'd say that disrupting the ability to launch nuclear weapons would be a priority for any world power, right? Well, let's put aside the "object", and think along these lines:

-Interfering with the missiles of a country other than your own in a test is could start a war.
-You CANNOT let this kind of program be anything less than black.
-People in high positions within the base are going to notice malfunctions if the system works.
Then we fork:
1.) The "disk" is actually the device which is causing the disruption, and there's no way to hide it.
2.) The "disk" is something mundane put in place to create a "chaff" story.

Now, which makes for a better story: 'Missiles malfunction, and we have no idea why!"
OR
"Flying disk seen overhead, and missiles malfunction... what do you think public?!"

The former is going to terrify EVERYONE, because the concept of malfunctioning launch systems or missiles is... well... terrifying. The latter, without telling a single story to confirm or deny any part of this, clutters the narrative. Conspiracy theorists can go in one direction, ET fanciers might consider that this is one of the few things an "alien" WOULD want to interfere with, and people like me will lean towards this being an intentional, but illegal under treaties, program.

The alternative is that this is total nonsense, people lying to cover mistakes out of fear that they'll lose their jobs... etc. I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

edit: I suppose it could be a weather phenomenon, but as I can't imagine a lenticular cloud having an effect on missile launch systems.

A very astute commentary IMO.

I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

My little knowledge of these things notwithstanding, I tend to agree with you. But what was the 'alaring story' ?

 

[Andre]

I don't understand. People do consider it, and some have come to the hypothesis that Earth may be the only planet in the galaxy capable of harboring intelligent life. It doesn't make their wild speculation right. You might as well say, that if the god factor was considered, it would virtually eliminate the chance of blah blah blah.

Whatever hypothetical you want to incorporate you can.

Maybe we are moving the goal posts around a bit much here. I think the original idea somewhere was to assess the possibility that there would be UFO sightings that could somehow be attributed to ET. So we did not considered physical impractibilities to see if this hypothetical alien form could somehow be tied to a nearby star which could be reacheable without using astronomical incredible numbers, say order of magnitude of 100-1000 years with a fraction of the speed of light. So we are talking about a few light years around us, maybe a dozen or two.

There are several stars in that area but only a fraction of that of the Milky way galaxy, the limit of the drake equation which is estimated in the order of magnitude of 10¹¹, or a factor of some 10⁸ to 10¹⁰ more than locally. So using numbers in drake, you can get to 1, 10, 100, 1000, whatever planets, with potential life forms capable of intergalactic travel. To apply that to the local environment, instead of the galaxy, you'd have to divide that by the ratio factor of the local stars versus the galaxy, ending up with very rough chances of something like 10^-8 to 10^-5 for possible life close around

Now this was before the chaotic zone effects were known, which may push that chance back some more zeros. So we really are discussing if the chance of aliens around in the close vicinity is more like 0.000001 or 0.00000000000001 or something.

However what is the chance that these aliens would actually visit us?

 

[FlexGunship]

Regarding the friendly neighborhood missile-launch-triggering-and-impedance-disc:

There are most likely 3 factors at play here.

1. Due to the passage of time, sme details have likely been exaggerated. The most commonly exaggerated details are the ones that support the conclusion already presupposed by the observer (UFO hunters tend to exaggerate the details that support the UFO part of their stories)
2. Coincidence of two unlikely events (i.e. electrical malfunction and visible aerial phenomenon)
3. Cognitive biases. Even if the disc in question were impossible to mistake as something mundane in normal circumstances, due to the extreme nature of the the scenario and the seemingly inexplicable series of events, the observers are likely to have sought a scapegoat and found it in this "disc."

"Yeah, Bob, it was crazy, the whole place lit up, I really thought were going to see a launch! It's a good thing we got it under control. After it was all over, we went outside for a smoke and Larry said there was this thing in the sky... I don't know. A circle, maybe?"

"Yeah, Ted, you should've been there. The place was going nuts. All of the electronics failed and the whole time this flying disc was in the air."

"BILL! It was incredible, this flying saucer showed up; we all saw it. Then all of the electronics simultaneously failed and started the countdown procedure."

"GARY, LISTEN! I'M TELLING YOU! A FLYING SAUCER TRIED TO LAUNCH A NUCLEAR MISSILE!"EDIT: As a closing thought on this particular topic, I'd like to say I would be much more concerned about the people in charge of these silos and their willingness to blame problems on flying saucers than about the flying saucers themselves.

 

[nismaratwork]

A very astute commentary IMO.

I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

My little knowledge of these things notwithstanding, I tend to agree with you. But what was the 'alaring story' ?

If there's no external explanation for seeming malfunctions of nuclear missile systems, I would think that would terrify people. As soon as you introduce an external agent, you add confusion, but also the sense that it isn't some random mistake. Furthermore, as this kind of experiment would violate current treaties, and those aside the notion of the capacity to disable the land-based missiles of an enemy would destabilize the entire MAD concept.

This way, it's just "flying disks" which become the focus, instead of:

1.) A malfunction...
2.) Induced Malfunction

FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.

 

[FlexGunship]

FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.

The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

 

[nismaratwork]

The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

Oh, I'm not saying that their training makes them any better at judging what a "flying disk" is than anyone on the street. What I am saying is that their LIFE for the few years they're allowed to hold this particular job is what they're trained to for. I'm saying they're literally expert observers of the systems that malfunctioned, and nothing else.

My personal belief is that it's either #2, or these people were genuinely in the dark about this, and the "light show" was for their benefit. After all, that requires far less "conspiracy" than the development of something like the F-117 or B-2 Spirit, and you build in a group of people who will testify with absolute certainty that a flying disk caused this. So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

 

[FlexGunship]

So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

I suspect this is very unlikely. Testing the readiness of a group is normal enough and is usually followed by a debriefing; however we don't see that here. Furthermore, why would any domestic agency be interested in disrupting it's own missile systems? It's not as though the technology is implicitly transferable to foreign applications. Shoot, until recently, you couldn't even use a U.S. domestic cell phone across the Atlantic.

While I appreciate the merits of your theory here, I don't think it's reasonable to operate on the assumption that an outside agent was involved at all. It's rare that such a secret could be kept, firstly, and secondly the benefits of such a secret are highly questionable.

Never underestimate the powers of simple misunderstanding.

EDIT: I will agree, however, that these seem to be the two most highly competitive explanations, Nismar. However, I don't find them equal.

 

[jreelawg]

Maybe we are moving the goal posts around a bit much here. I think the original idea somewhere was to assess the possibility that there would be UFO sightings that could somehow be attributed to ET. So we did not considered physical impractibilities to see if this hypothetical alien form could somehow be tied to a nearby star which could be reacheable without using astronomical incredible numbers, say order of magnitude of 100-1000 years with a fraction of the speed of light. So we are talking about a few light years around us, maybe a dozen or two.

There are several stars in that area but only a fraction of that of the Milky way galaxy, the limit of the drake equation which is estimated in the order of magnitude of 10¹¹, or a factor of some 10⁸ to 10¹⁰ more than locally. So using numbers in drake, you can get to 1, 10, 100, 1000, whatever planets, with potential life forms capable of intergalactic travel. To apply that to the local environment, instead of the galaxy, you'd have to divide that by the ratio factor of the local stars versus the galaxy, ending up with very rough chances of something like 10^-8 to 10^-5 for possible life close around

Now this was before the chaotic zone effects were known, which may push that chance back some more zeros. So we really are discussing if the chance of aliens around in the close vicinity is more like 0.000001 or 0.00000000000001 or something.

However what is the chance that these aliens would actually visit us?

What your saying is, what if the chances are .000001...? I can counter your argument by saying; what if the chances are 50%? The thing is, the chances of making any kind of meaningful prediction of being visited by ET using the drake equation, very very low.

We already know that life exists all over earth, including deep underground, living off of methane in the bottom of the ocean, etc. If life can live on Earth in such extreme conditions, how would drastic climate change make the existence of life impossible as your link suggested?

Also, why is it necessary that we have perfect eclipses to have intelligent life? As your link suggests maybe it is coincidence, maybe it is no coincidence. I'm left not convinced of anything as a result of reading it.