...immediately contacts Jaimie Maussan ... to investigate the case ..., the alarm bells just start ringing. This is what I mean about considering the source.

Yes, me too. Unfortunately Bart5050 doesn't see anything wrong with marketing one's claims of the unknown to people who have very clear beliefs about what it is.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

A couple of quotes by Carl Sagan:

and:

Source: http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring [that may be]. . . . Superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way [of understanding nature], providing easy answers, dodging skeptical scrutiny, casually pressing our awe buttons and cheapening the experience, making us routine and comfortable practitioners as well as victims of credulity. . . . [Pseudoscience] ripples with gullibility. . . .

The whole idea of democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge...

Part of the situation may be caused by the Drake equation formulated in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact.

ET's promotors using it as an approbation of the scientific community about possible ExtraTerrestrials visitation probability.

ET's promotors using it as an approbation of the scientific community about possible ExtraTerrestrials visitation probability.

Ask Frank Drake what he thinks about UFOs and UFO "researchers."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think you miss my point to be more clear:
Et's and Ufo's promotors use the Drake equation in a fraudulus way.

Et's and Ufo's promotors use the Drake equation in a fraudulus way.

Ah, yes. And Dr. Drake agrees with you.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I would say they use it in wishful-thinking way.

As long as you don't have any reliable numbers to put into the Drake equation it is just an intellectual exercise. Not 'proof' of anything.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Even with speculative numbers that are aided by our best scientific reasoning, the Drake equation covers only radio (i.e., electromagnetic) contact. It does not count toward visitation, which would require different formulation and not just different numbers.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

With the insidious effect leading to the false concept of the possibility that the ET's civilisations can and are visiting us.

that is why I say that by twisting the radio contact possibility , they lead people to believe into a physical contact by advanced extraterrestrials civilisations technologically millions of years in advance compare to us.

I think some may like to play with
Macromedia Flash page allowing the user to modify Drake's values from PBS Nova

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

Do you have some guesses about these different formulation(s) ?

I think that would be hard to determine.

Ah yes, of course.
The parameter "the fraction of civilisations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space" would have to be "the fraction of civilisations that develop a technology that allows for interstellar exploration", which puts it into a completely different ball park.

I know of no facts that exclude the possibility, but the probability is a lot lower (and I mean lots and lots) then the probability of there being a civilisation detectable by radio.

Also, a star traveling civilisation would have to develop radio first.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Just because I don't have a lot of experiance with this issue and don't know the people dosn't mean I can't investigate the evidence and evaluate.

The one associated with Jaimie Maussan is a hoax. The one with the Japanese pilot in Alaska is real. The question is a real what?

These are real. Are they real plasma balls, don't know yet. One balloon, and a lot of uknowns.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/m...smic_Traveler/

As I have stated before, I am very sceptical of the idea that extraterrestrials are visiting us currently; but if we allow for the possibility of interstellar colonisation, then that becomes the most likely form of contact, simply because they would be here already and would have been here (most probably) for billions of years.

Some things cannot be ruled out at the moment;

1/the possibility that we are alone in the Milky Way Galaxy;
2/the possibility that we have neighbours, but they do not emit radio signals that are strong enough to detect
3/the possibility that we are embedded in a galactic civilisation which hides itself from us for some reason.

All three of these possibilities have problems associated with them.
1/ seems to violate the Copernican principle of mediocrity; why are we so special?
2/ seems to suggest that civilisations can only ever reach a level comparable to ourselves, and are undetectable for that reason; an alternate explanation is that one a civilisation becomes very advanced, it becomes intrinsically invisible in some way. Perhaps they never use radio for communications, never colonise extensively and and limit their waste energy output to undetectable levels.
3/would possibly allow the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis to be true, and that might mean that (some of) the stories of abduction could be true, no matter how absurd. But this would require that the Earth has been under quarantine for at least hundreds of millions of years, as no evidence for past visits can be found in palaeontology, geology, genetics or archaeology. Or perhaps the civilisation which is sending UFOs to our system has only recently emerged, although to odds of this happening are very long indeed. Why would they emerge in the same period as ourselves, a period which is a mere eye-blink in geological time?

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

eburacum45: Your discussion of the implications of possibility (2), as well part of your objection to (3), hinges around the "Apes and Angels" problem, don't they?

If I may elaborate for anyone not familiar with that issue:

As implied in the Drake equation, we need to do more than just calculate the probabilities of life evolving elsewhere in the universe. We also need to factor in the chances of intelligence evolving. What's more, we need to know that probability of it evolving at roughly the same time as ours.

If we use Earth as a guide, then the evolution of intelligence occurs in an eye-blink of cosmological time. So the chances of coincident evolution of intelligence are very, very small.

Which means that any life "out there" at the moment, will almost certainly be either pre-intelligent, even microbial (the "Apes"), or it will be "post intelligent", something so far beyond us that we can't even grasp it (the "Angels").

Look how far a bunch of scruffy apes has come in 100,000 years. Look how much their technology has improved in just 100 years! Is it even remotely possible that we can accurately predict what will happen to humanity in one million years? Yet it is entirely possible that other current intelligences are billions of years older than ours!

Radio? Why would they bother with the technological equivalent, to them, of smoke signals? Waste energy? Maybe they're too frugal to waste energy, or maybe they waste it on such a scale that we mistake their waste for cosmological processes! Invisible to us in all ways? How much awareness of humanity do microbes have?

By the way, everything I know about the Apes and Angels problem I learned at Atomic Rockets. And their presentation lacks the pompous tone that I cannot help at times to use when describing something.

I would heartily recommend Atomic Rockets to Kai Yeves or any other aspiring Sci-Fi/Space Opera author. That's who the site is specifically created for.

Just because I don't have a lot of experiance with this issue and don't know the people dosn't mean I can't investigate the evidence and evaluate.

Agreed. Your complete disregard for scientific method, your inability to formulate a sound line of reasoning, and your gullibility are what mean you can't investigate and evaluate the evidence.

Bart, I asked you what you hoped to gain by continuing to post here on this topic, since you said you're well familiar with what our answers are going to be and you don't seem to like any of them. I'd reall like you to state your goals for continuing to engage us on this topic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What is the purpose of this link? I see a lot of images and film clips. Many can be stars that scintillate/balloons/daylight videos of venus/etc. I don't see anything compelling.

Bart, I asked you what you hoped to gain by continuing to post here on this topic, since you said you're well familiar with what our answers are going to be and you don't seem to like any of them. I'd reall like you to state your goals for continuing to engage us on this topic.

Why do you continue to post here? I read a lot of forums, sometimes I post an observation or opinion on them. Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not. Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions? Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

What is the purpose of this link? I see a lot of images and film clips. Many can be stars that scintillate/balloons/daylight videos of venus/etc. I don't see anything compelling.

Most of these objects are below the clouds. Not saying I know what they are. Was hoping someone here did. If you class them as stars or Venus, then I question that opinion.

Why do you continue to post here? I read a lot of forums, sometimes I post an observation or opinion on them. Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not. Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

Unresponsive to the question.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions? Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

Unresponsive to the question and it looks to me like a veiled and baseless accusation.

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

And another one.

Bart, is it really too much to expect you to directly answer the questions put to you?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

1. How can you tell they are below the clouds. I only watched one clip and looked at a few images. The clip showed a point source that looked above the clouds. To me, it looked like a daytime filming of Venus.

2. Feel free to provide specific images/clips you find the most compelling. I am not going to go through an entire barrage of what about this one? I explain what it may be and then you go on to the next one.

edit: I looked again and saw some objects that were below the clouds. However, they were "tumbling" as they floated in the sky. To me they looked like a mylar balloon floating some distance away. I did not see anything unearthly associated with that clip.

Not entirely on subject but I'd like to say that i'm impressed - this is remarkably non-flame. It is refreshing to find people that discuss rather than yell.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT????


(j/k)

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not.

But that doesn't stop you from issuing a blanket condemnation of the entire approach being taken here. Please reconcile that statement with your prior actions.

Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

This particular part of the forum is for presesnting, testing, and defending conspiracy theories. Are you doing that?

What part of your purpose is served by suggesting that science as a whole is misguided and irresponsible?

"Open debate" here does not mean you won't be held accountable for the logical and factual validity of your claims. It does not mean you won't be held accountable for your approach, including attempts to evade hard questions.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions?

No, and you know it doesn't.

However the forum does require you to take questions seriously and respond to them with something more substantial than well-poisoning, handwaving, evasion, and straw-man dismissals.

Since you habitually sidestep or ignore questions that test the strength of your claims on grounds except those you have preconceived, and you seem to think that approach is inappropriate, then I wonder what your real purpose is in continuing to subject us to claims whose response you both anticipate and reject as at odds with what you want in terms of "open debate."

You are the one characterizing the debate here as inappropriate. Why do you continue to engage it debate you think is merely dismissive?

Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

No, and you know it isn't.

But you are required to give an informed reason for your disagreement. Trying to dismiss your critics as overly skeptical ne'er-do-wells does not constitute a sufficient grounds for disagreement.

Since you say you know we will disagree, and since you say you know the manner of our disagreement well enough to characterize it as "typical debunking," and since you have previously identifed that expected manner of disagreement as inappropriate to your desired mode of debate, I ask again: what do you hope to attain by continuing your present course of action?

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

This forum is intended to test space- and astronomy-related conspiracy theories for the rigor of their formulation and the strength of their facts. If doing so is not your intent, and you are not posting a conspiracy theory or defending one promoted by others, then what purpose do you have in mind?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Do you have some guesses about these different formulation(s) ? I think that would be hard to determine.

You are correct.

The interesting part of Drake's approach is not the simple probabilistic compilation but the science behind estimating each of the terms. While in the end each term includes considerable speculation and extrapolation, there is nevertheless a lot of science to be looked at there.

As has been said, to apply Drake's equation to actual Earth visitation, the term "fraction of civilizations that develop EM-emissive technology" has to be revised to "fraction of civilizations that develop interstellar spacefaring technology," and a new term must be added: "fraction of spacecrafting civilizations that explore life-bearing planets."

Earth's emission of electromagnetic energy is largely accidental. Except for narrow-casting to our outbound exploratory spacecraft and to our communication satellites, most of our transmissions radiate broadly because that's the natural behavior of such energy and there's no case for restricting it. Drake's "EM-emissive" term addresses such broadcasts -- that is, the notion that we would most likely receive a sort of alien version of "I Love Lucy" (perhaps "I Love Zarquon") and only because it was accidentally radiated into space and was actually intended for some other use.

Spacefaring is not accidental. It is deliberate. While we can expect a non-zero possibility of contact as an accidental result of some other mission (e.g., the scenario in Star Trek: First Contact), the fact remains that spacefaring for any purpose differs qualitatiively from accidental emission of electromagnetic energy and thus entails significantly lower quantitative estimates of probability.

Spacefaring is also discriminate. The aliens choose to go into space, and only to the places they deem worthy.

Spacefaring is linear in time, as opposed to EM-emissions that consitute broadcasts. A single broadcast reaches many points simultaneously, albeing at a strength attenuated by the inverse square law. Spacefaring reaches only one point at a time, limited by causality.

All that requires substantially different (and necesarily lower) estimates of probability.

The new term supposes an intential search for life (or perhaps at least the acceptance of the eventuality of contacting new life) arising conditionally from spacefaring in general. The probability of contacting Earth in that search necessitates the numer of life-supporting planets as a divisor in this term. That is where the math which ensures the Drake equation will never give a practically zero probability for the existence of detectable life would also give a practically zero probability that such life physically contacts Earthlings. Up until now the vast number of planets has been a multiplier. As a divisor it has the opposite effect.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects. They do not look like spaceships to me. They are being seen all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons. Lots from Australia and UK. Plasma?

Could be a prosaic explenation for a lot of sightings?

Here is an intersting one, to avoid five pages worth is a reasonable request.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/m...oom1_12fps.flv

Here is one seen less often but accounts maybe for the cigar shaped sightings,

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ermany1980.flv

Which looks a lot like the one in this report.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ffa_1184095765

I'm not biting this time.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects.

I think it's more likely your purpose is to bait people into a discussion in which they will have first assumed some burden of proof.

What is your conspiracy theory? If you don't have one, why are you posting this material here? This is not a research service.

There are several dozen examples. Since it is your evidence, please provide your explaination or theory for each one. No one is obligated to research and evaluate dozens of photographs just because you think such an exercise would be nifty.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects. They do not look like spaceships to me. They are being seen all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons. Lots from Australia and UK. Plasma?

Bart,
Just looks like a lot of out-of-focus, poor quality filming to me. No frame of reference, no clear image, just fuzzy views. Ever read up on the "rods hoax"?

Rods are out of focus insects. Anyone should be capable of seeing that.

I don't know what the object in photobucket is. They are being filmed all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons.

OK, you won't bite so I will.

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus. Yet the radar says the object stayed on their six during a turn. The crew also saw Venus and stars and recognized the difference. Its classic UFO.

And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well.

I would like to see a prosaic explenation that covers all points and does not leave me saying, but what about this?

And I would like this explenation to not have as its hingepost that I am incapable of using my brain properly. Because every time you do that it looks like a tap dance of evade and baffle.

Thats why it puts a bee in my bonnet. I have solved some major problems in the past with brain power and persistance. Every where I ever worked I became the problem solver. When others found no design solutions they called me in because I refused to give up till it was all figured out.

Not one of your arguments made a point that was not centered on the premise that my thinking is faulty. If you can support the arguments strictly on the facts fine.

If you have to support your arguments on me being incapable of rational thought then they fail and I agree there is no point in further debate.