T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Generally, I laugh at these stories, seems like the sightings are always by dudes wearing tin foil hats.

No tinfoil hat here.

About 10-15 years ago, my wife and I saw some lights darting around the sky over US 169 about 5 miles directly east of KCI.

I pulled over and watched this show. Completely unexplainable...at least a dozen pinpoints of red lights in the sky darting to and fro... as if they were playing "tag", over enormous distances, but in the mere blink of an eye. I watched them frolic like this for a good 10 minutes.

Never saw anything like it before and haven't since.

I have no idea what it was I saw, but I saw it, and I'm damn sure that it wasn't any earthly phenomena that I was witnessing.

Even though he was her boss and he literally had years to get it done the bitter little fat fucker never could land Mary Tyler Moore so is it any wonder dude is now seeing space ships?

Your statements are illogical!


Don't talk to me about what's illogical!

when I was teaching HS biology I'd touch on the
subject of UFO's, Big foot, etc. I told the kids that
with the proliferation of home video, that if there
were no "in your face" video of "alien ships" ,
"Sasquatch", or the "Loch Ness Monster" by
the year 2000--
not grainy, jerky long distance shots
--that they were all a hoax or joke.
I stand by that claim.

Wolfman wrote:when I was teaching HS biology I'd touch on the
subject of UFO's, Big foot, etc. I told the kids that
with the proliferation of home video, that if there
were no "in your face" video of "alien ships" ,
"Sasquatch", or the "Loch Ness Monster" by
the year 2000--
not grainy, jerky long distance shots
--that they were all a hoax or joke.
I stand by that claim.

Wow. Good call.

Every year I get students who want to know if I "believe in UFO's."

They basically want to know if I am convinced that there's life on other planets and if that life has visited this planet.

What I tell them is that although I believe that the conditions that made life possible on this planet may exist somewhere else in the universe and therefore it may exist, that anyone claiming that there "has to be" life on another world is dabbling in the realm of faith, not science. My statements along these lines drive our district's physics/earth science teacher nuts, since he firmly argues that there absolutely MUST BE in extraterrestrial life, based on that whole "if even one galaxy in a million..." pseudoscientific argument. The fact is that each and every scientist who uses that argument is pulling the numbers out their ass and is, in actuality, merely giving an argument for a possibility of life, not an argument that it definitely is out there. It is also not a scientific proof to make statements along the lines of it being "unlikely that life only developed on Earth" or to refer to emotional terms like "hubris," "arrogance," etc. when referring to the "life on Earth only" concept. Just because a bunch of scientists desperately want for there to be extraterrestrial life (for scientific or emotional reasons) doesn't make their mathematical computations "proof." Bring me an alien (or a pic). Or an alien-made device. Or an intelligently-composed transmission from another world. Otherwise, put the "if just one in a million..." scribblings away and get back to real science.

The scientific fact is that we have absolutely no credible, verifiable scientific evidence for the claim of life on other planets. None. SETI has turned up zilch, and even the alleged "bacterial life forms" from Mars rocks are no longer considered legit by most scientists (yeah, the guys who proposed the idea are still sticking to it, but they're pretty much the only ones still buying it).

As far as whether the extraterrestrials have visited - why the hell would a species sophisticated enough for interstellar travel spend most of their time dealing with hillbillies? The alleged abductions are all horseshit made up by outright liars or deluded folks exhibiting "false memory syndrome."

EDIT: Another point I remembered is that we tend to assume that alien life will have evolved under the same (or similar) conditions as here on Earth, will follow the exact same "rules," and will therefore look like something resembling Earth life. This is a natural bias, since Earth is all we really know, but it may not be accurate.

The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{*} ~ \times ~ f_{p} ~ \times ~ n_{e} ~ \times ~ f_{l} ~ \times ~ f_{i} ~ \times ~ f_{c} ~ \times ~ L

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time

and

R* is the rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
L is the expected lifetime of such a civilization

[edit]

Historical estimates of the parameters

Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:

* R* = 10/year,
* fp = 0.5,
* ne = 2,
* fl = 1,
* fi = 0.01,
* fc = 0.01,
* and L = 10,000 years.

The value of R* is the least disputed. fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which have little of the ultraviolet radiation that has contributed to the evolution of life on Earth. Instead they flare violently, mostly in X-rays — a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (e.g. Jupiter's satellite Europa) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

mothster wrote:The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{*} ~ \times ~ f_{p} ~ \times ~ n_{e} ~ \times ~ f_{l} ~ \times ~ f_{i} ~ \times ~ f_{c} ~ \times ~ L

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time

and

R* is the rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
L is the expected lifetime of such a civilization

[edit]

Historical estimates of the parameters

Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:

* R* = 10/year,
* fp = 0.5,
* ne = 2,
* fl = 1,
* fi = 0.01,
* fc = 0.01,
* and L = 10,000 years.

The value of R* is the least disputed. fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which have little of the ultraviolet radiation that has contributed to the evolution of life on Earth. Instead they flare violently, mostly in X-rays — a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (e.g. Jupiter's satellite Europa) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

Did you just put this post together right off the top of your head?

Image of the Phoenix Lights, just before they broke formation.


Spectrum differences & smoke trails from high intensity flares vs the Phoenix Lights.


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

On March 13th, 1997, a series of bizarre lights appeared over the skies of Arizona, an event witnessed by many hundreds of individuals. (myself included) Most explanations for the lights were attributed to smoke trails from high intensity flares, and in one of the above photos, the pattern is strikingly similar.

What isn't accounted for, is the way the lights moved, shifted formation, darted about like bees and flew in less than conventional means. To this day I don't know what the hell that was, though I'm not inclined to go the flying saucer route. But whatever it was, it was freaking weird as all hell.

Military manuvers? Experiments? I've yet to see any authoritative answer as to exactly what happened that evening.

mothster wrote:
The value of R* is the least disputed. fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher...

Funny how they mention R*, fp and ne, but completely fail to mention that fl, fi and fc are complete conjecture since they have absolutely nothing to base their values on.

Mikey wrote:

mothster wrote:
The value of R* is the least disputed. fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher...

Funny how they mention R*, fp and ne, but completely fail to mention that fl, fi and fc are complete conjecture since they have absolutely nothing to base their values on.

Not to mention the absence of fs (footsteps): LA = 1.5 GBL SD.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:

mothster wrote:
The value of R* is the least disputed. fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher...

Funny how they mention R*, fp and ne, but completely fail to mention that fl, fi and fc are complete conjecture since they have absolutely nothing to base their values on.

The entire equation is conjecture as Drake well knew. Its purpose is to focus your inquiry not provide a definitive answer to the question.

so it is all bullshyte like the rest of your answers

this is pretty much old hat--------

art bell/george noory

Bode HillBillies ?

Tom In VA wrote:Bode HillBillies ?

AP Coaches Poll

1. HBJ
2. DC Smackmaster
3. Caddie

If I'm coming up with a fake story of being abducted by aliens, they're going to be some HOT ass aliens that look like

So, the UFO conspiracies are coming from people in Louisiana, Missouri, and Arizona...


:BIGSHOCKER:

Wolfman wrote:I stand by that claim.

Bold move, wolfman. Bold move.

I also stand by the claim there is no Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
I also stand by the claim there is no Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

If I see you I will fight you.

Wolfman wrote:"Sasquatch ....a hoax or joke.

Dude...chill out.

Sasquatch posts here.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!


Your thoughts, timmay?

.

TLR-- and others:
pretty hard to swallow a biochemistry that is
not carbon based !!
the laws of physics/chemistry are universal
(or was Einstein wrong ?)
this subject is best discussed in person over a
few cold adult beverages !!

Wolfman wrote:TLR-- and others:
pretty hard to swallow a biochemistry that is
not carbon based !!
the laws of physics/chemistry are universal
(or was Einstein wrong ?)
this subject is best discussed in person over a
few cold adult beverages !!

Carbon-based does not necessarily mean "bilaterally symmetrical critters with cephalization" as most sci-fi writers like to imagine. In the "Origins" PBS series, one of the great points that Dr. Tyson and his guest experts make is that we have been supposing that alien life will look like us, which is illogical. The basic body plan on Earth for dominant animals (tube-within-a-tube, symmetry, eyes on head, etc.), plants, etc., all depended upon the most fit for OUR PLANET. Hell, the our nearest intelligent extraterrestrial neighbiors could have gaseous "bodies," gelatinous bodies, be able to survive in a vacuum, communicate in ways we can't imagine, etc. The adaptations that are most fit to an alien world may result in creatures we may not even recognize as "life."

We are limited to what we have found in our backyard and have used that to compose the "rules." Yes, physics and chemistry have basic laws which we believe to be universal, but that has nothing to do with how alien species may store and pass genetic information, compose their bodies, etc.

But MtLR

In your expert opinion do you think some non-carbon based lifeform could look like



And if so, would they be interested in performing strange but beautiful sexual experiments on broad shouldered Irish/Italian descent hillbilly wannabes ?

Tom In VA wrote:But MtLR

In your expert opinion do you think some non-carbon based lifeform could look like



And if so, would they be interested in performing strange but beautiful sexual experiments on broad shouldered Irish/Italian descent hillbilly wannabes ?

One can always dream, Tom.