I can empathize with that, but it’s the wrong approach to answering a question. One has to be driven to find the truth, no matter what it turns out to be. But if you start out trying to find the answer that you desire, then all of your subsequent analysis will be tainted by that desire.not really what u am trying to say
i just wanto to see the most interesting answer
I started looking for the answer to this question when I was seven years old, right after my own multiple witness daylight sighting. And I didn’t care what the answer was, I just wanted to understand how what I had seen could be physically possible. Honestly I expected to find an answer in advanced military research projects. But the deeper I dug, the less likely that explanation appeared to be. Eventually I saw that all of the scientific data from multiple disciplines was converging on an extraterrestrial explanation for what I had witnessed. And that trend has continued ever since. So I can now confidently say that the ETH is by far the best solution for the majority of AAV sighting incidents, which tend to be quite similar to my own sighting.
But I also don’t rule out other possibilities – I think that if we could somehow know the nature of each genuine case, we’d need a pie chart to classify all of the different kinds of things that people are seeing. Aside from the mundane cases (secret military craft, atmospheric anomalies, etc)., the most common type appears to be extraterrestrial technology, but I’d be stunned if that was all there is. There are probably a lot of incidents of an even more exotic nature that we haven’t even figured out how to think about yet, but altogether, they appear to less common, and altogether I would hazard to guess that they account for somewhere between 5% and 30% of all truly anomalous sighting events.
Holy cow… I’ve read a lot of nutty ideas on the internet, but this one may be the walnut topping the ice cream cone.God and man saved the planet by creating and burning fossil fuel.
There’s zero logical or empirical justification for that conclusion. I just thought somebody should point that out.There may be a few tiny creatures that can eat bacteria, but no higher life forms.
They’re looking for planets around all types of stars, and they’re finding that most if not all types of stars have earth-like planets – though I’m not sure about white dwarfs; I would imagine that most planets get blown to smithereens during a nova or supernova event in those systems.Are we looking for earth-like planets only in systems with a star like our sun?...Has there been any determinations, theories or research into whether or not systems of planets with non-sunlike stars can harbour life?...
...
I’m sure that some scientists are considering the prospect of life around other types of stars beside our own. Most people like to focus on Sun-like stars and earth-like planets in the HZ, because life in other scenarios is more speculative. But I’d be shocked if life didn’t arise in a number of different kinds of scenarios as well. Scientists are considering conditions around other types of stars and the likelihood of life around them - according to these papers, our situation might be somewhat of an outlier:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.11134.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.07813.pdf
Last edited: