Spaceman spiff
Noble
Could be, i still find it strange no ones hopped inside the monkey cage in the zoo, so to speak.
Arguments Against ETH
- Thread starter humanoidlord
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Could be, i still find it strange no ones hopped inside the monkey cage in the zoo, so to speak.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
@Thomas R. Morrison explained it more detail than I. Would you voluntier to enter into cage with wild gorilla or even chimp at your local zoo?
Spaceman spiff
Noble
No. But there are people who have jumped inside cages and died. Like recently one guy was killed by a tiger.
But i cant find any genuine aliens or their bodies on this planet. Lots of hoaxes tough, like those damn Nazca mummies.
nivek
As Above So Below
There are many cases of aliens "jumping inside the cage", so to speak, many cases depicted in this thread linked below although none have died;
UFOnauts: What they look like...?
Here's a full account of one incident:
Rosa Dainelli Case
.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
I hope so.
I find great comfort in the fact that no interstellar visitor has been as stupid and reckless as the guy who climbed into a tiger cage.
But it could also be troubling - maybe we won't survive long enough as a species to achieve rapid manned interstellar spaceflight because we're so stupid and reckless and violent. Maybe interstellar travelers have seen species like ours rise before, and wipe themselves off the map before they shed their celestial diapers - if they can see that we're a doomed species, that might also explain why they don't bother to make contact with us.
But my main point stands either way: I can see no benefit for an interstellar civilization to contact us because we have nothing to offer them, but I can see a wealth of reasons why they'd leave us alone. Apparently they've all done the math and reached the same conclusion.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
I am aware. Theres landing cases from my own small country too.
Those are just stories tough, as intresting as they are, they cant really be confirmed and any evidence that remains is at best circumstantial. Thats the problem. Smoking gun remains elusive.
Last edited:
nivek
As Above So Below
In my opinion we shouldn't disregard an eyewitness report, photo, or encounter that cannot be confirmed or verified other than the word of the witness...These are all pieces of the puzzle and are more indicators of visitations...
Not saying we should blindly accept every single one either, some are obvious fakes and hoaxes...
...
Spaceman spiff
Noble
Oh i dont dis them totally, just saying we need more to be sure.
And it is true that if you have an incomplete puzzle infront of you, and you put some pieces in, you begin to see a certain picture forming even when the puzzle isnt yet complete. Thats where i am. Theres certainly things that hint at some kind of otherworldy presence. But theres also nagging questions and oddities that need to be addressed...
Last edited:
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
The only scientifically accepted way is not to study individual cases, but to do statistical analysis of large number of cases. In Greater numbers than cases support each other and a bigger picture emerges.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
Ufonauts are always armed. There is a number of cases where people were shot by kind of weapon lookin like a pencil or a button on belt.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
Its funny how the scientists and academia keep ignoring UFOs as an answer to the Fermis Paradox, even as a "von Neumann" probe kinds of things, since thats their own conjuration. Yet some of them are all too happy to paint a slow moving rock (Oumuamua) as a "light sail ET ship".
Its like primitive natives discussing and one tells the other "you will ignore those flying iron bird things. But do a report on that strange canoe you saw, that might be something."
Its like primitive natives discussing and one tells the other "you will ignore those flying iron bird things. But do a report on that strange canoe you saw, that might be something."
Last edited:
Perhaps it is the same reason why this planet wasn’t colonized billions of years ago. Space-faring civilizations are giving our native ecosystem a chance to independently evolve an intelligent species that might in time contribute something unique and wonderful to the universe.
Open contact is destruction, a terrorist act if you will. What vestige of humanity do you envision competing with a billion year old intelligence? Humanity would never get a chance to contribute something wonderful because it would be destroyed through total assimilation beforehand.
Moreover, looking at earth's ecosystem, one sees that more recently evolved species nearly always have greater complexity and a far greater potential. Total galactic colonization would deny the universe having this greater potential from ever being realized.
In this light, open contact is a criminal and illogical act. Criminality, stupidity, and terrorism are traits that evolution has left behind a long, long time ago for these billion+ year old species and hence such an act should not be expected from any ETs that are present here.
I would suggest that this is next to impossible. If this were the case what magical force is keeping the rest of the universe barren? If it is not barren why hasn't there been enough time since the first space-faring civilization arose for them to find us? Exploring a galaxy happens really quick on a geological time scale and does not require any exotic propulsion system such as field propulsion. See here, Slingshot Dynamics for Self Replicating Probes and the Effect on... .
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
It's not that. Planets are dangerous place to live on. Global warming is pretty lame. Recently completed GIA study of our galactic neighborhood found a star that will in about 1.5 million years pass through Coupier belt. That means a new shower of asteroids falling on Earth. And Sun would balloon in size in about half a billion years.
Truly advanced civilisations simply build ginormous spaceships and move between solar systems in perpetual safety. And in unlimited abundance because they use resources of nearly unlimited number of worlds.
Not necessarily. Evolution completely depends on chance. If that asteroid didn't wipe out dinosaurs maybe there would never be an intelligent spieces on Earth.
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Yup. The picture in the puzzle may not turn out to be what is expected. Might be ET. In many cases it's just a mirror.
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Me neither but I wasn't suggesting that when I posted the picture. It was about the family's reaction when confronted with the unexpected and unknown. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a way you could just sit down and talk to that guy minus all the obvious barriers and ask him what he thought of it all from his p.o.v? You would certainly get an opinion lacking all the (pop) cultural front loading we all have. Our speculation about ET's motives are unavoidably anthropomorphic, and because of that we are probably missing something.
To shift gears a bit, one thing that seems kind of odd to me is that so many different types of creatures have been reported over the years - and generally they stopped wearing helmets for some time now, right? Much has been made of the sheer volume of eyewitness reports, so here's a facet of them I haven't heard anyone mention. They breathe our air, maybe slurp our water, sometimes flip a pancake. Quite a lot has been said about the sheer volume of eyewitness accounts. So if we're wondering about the statistical likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy alone (which I think is a virtual certainty), how many do you suppose would be able to a) travel here in the first place and then b) exist unaided in our biosphere without issue and then c) consider the number of species supposedly able to do that. That would be an interesting exercise in speculative number crunching.
Captain Kirk could do that because it had to be written into the story line to make entertainment. I'd caution against using the magic wand that says their technology would obviously take care of all those details.
Last edited:
Even if this were true, how would this preclude ETs who happen upon our planet from making open contact with us now? Moreover, why can't ETs, that have managed to develop field propulsion no less, protect their homeworld from falling rocks?
Why would their possible lifestyle choices ie. being gypsies, invariably force them to remain silent when exploring our world?
Although chance plays an important role in evolution it is not the sole driver. See here, Evolution myths: Evolution is random .
I agree with you that mass extinctions are quite likely necessary for intelligence to emerge over reasonable periods of time. I think of mass extinction events as evolution accelerators. Rapid environmental change seems to promote species differentiation as most extinction events are closely followed by radiation in the fossil record. It also seems to promote resiliency as mass extinction events become less severe over time as the ecosystem as a whole learns to adapt to rapid environmental change.
For many years it was suggested that having a Jupiter like planet taking the hits from asteroids was necessary for planets to develop sentient life. Given how quickly our biosphere has recovered from past extinction events, Jupiter’s presence may have slowed evolution on this planet and not accelerated it. Evolution may have proceeded at a far quicker pace in worlds without a Jupiter to protect them and hence the emergence of intelligent life may have happened on a far shorter time scale than here.
So if the intelligence trait is such a rare occurrence who builds these “ginormous spaceships” for the galactic gypsies?
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
"promote resiliency", "ecosystem learns"... you are talking as ecosystems are living things. Ecosystem is inanimate algorithm that repeats itself if environment allows it. That's why there is no evolution going on on the Moon. There were long periods on Earth when evolution was completely reversed and 90% of species were lost. Life had to wait millions of years for conditions to come back to normal.
You are too worried to find impressive generalisations. What is happening on the Earth is not necessarily what applies to other solar systems.
Perhaps for fans of the simulation hypothesis but not for mainstream scientists. As defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Ecosystem, the complex of living organisms, their physical environment, and all their interrelationships in a particular unit of space.”
That is just pure nonsense. Evolution does not reverse. See here, Can Evolution Run in Reverse? A Study Says It’s a One-Way Street .
As for the recovery period from extinctions, a study found that it took about 4 million years for biodiversity to fully recover in SA from the K-T extinction event. Multiply that by five for the number of major extinction events that multicellular life experienced over the last 600 million years and you end up with a number which implies life on this planet was stressed by extinction events for a relatively small amount of time.
You seem to have great trouble keeping a consistent argument. In your first response to me you posited that planet's are dangerous places making long-term survival problematic for any species. Then you suggested they are tranquil Edens that last forever. Which is it, Eden or hell?
Then you suggest that mass extinction paved the way for the arrival of intelligent life and then in your second response you seem to argue that extinctions are problematic. So what it is in your opinion? Do extinction events accelerate evolution or not?
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
That is exactly what an algorithm is. Back to you.
Wow, a mass extinction that wipes out is 90% is not reversal in the pace of evolution? Are you deliberately playing naive? Because you clearly understood that I was talking about mass extinctions, not evolution going backwards, because you spent 2/3 of the post talking about extinctions.
By the way, that study is incomplete. Evolution had been reversed in laboratory. One simply gives an organisam all the nutrients, plus one removes competition and all other environmental threats. What happens next is that number of genes immediately falls drastically, like 80%.
You misinterpreted what I said, than accused me of something I didn't say. If you don't pick up on something it's not a big deal, just ask, I am here to help. I clearly alluded that mass extinctions are rundom accidents and as such can not be cause of something as sophisticated as intelligence. There were 5 extinctions and 4 failed in that task.
Again you are putting into my mouth something I never said in this thread. Can you please provide reference for Edens lasting forewer, unless you again invented it.
Although I never alluded to Edens part, Earth had obviously had long periods of tranquility punctured by brief moments of terror. So even if one said that there is no disagreement with facts.
Last edited: