UFO's and skeptical thinking.

[3point14]

I was musing today about UFO's and woo, and thought I'd ask the opinion of all you out there about this.

Does a skeptic deny the possibility of UFO's completely? While it would require an amazing amout of energy to propel a spaceship across the vast gulf of interstellar wossname, it isn't actually impossible, is it?

Is it possible that one, or more than one UFO sighting could have been visitors from another planet, who, if they have any sense, took one look and buggered off to alpha proximi immidiately?

Just wondering.

[ChristineR]

The closest stars to the earth are still a long, long way away, so while it's not impossible, it's far more likely that they'd be sending out unmanned probes or radio signals (ala SETI). If those turned up something interesting, yes they might consider manned missions. If someone did manage to overcome the problems of years and years in space (food, hygiene, lack of gravity, extreme old age and/or reproduction, child rearing, isolation, fuel, health care, who knows what else...) you'd think they stop and stay awhile. Or if they were only here to observe and not interfere (ala Star Trek) why wouldn't they use their superior technology to hide themselves from us?

So while it's possible, it really doesn't fit the facts.

[tsg]

There is a good deal of speculation on how to cross interstellar distances without being constrained by the speed of light, so, is it impossible? Probably not.

Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? I would have to say that it is more likely than not. But we also know precious little about what conditions are necessary for the evolution of intelligent life, so it's a qualified "maybe".

Has any of it been here? Bloody unlikely. Not impossible, but so far there is no evidence that it has.

I would have to imagine that if they're going to make the trip they'd at least want to have a look around, even if it's just to gawk at the cute primitive race just figuring out how to get off their own rock.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As a skeptic and critical thinker, I do not deny possibilities. I just take a pessimistic view on some topics. I make an effort to have a scientific approach to most things, examine them individually for their merit and see to what the evidence points and not find evidence to point to what I would like it to point at.

[John Jackson]

If someone did manage to overcome the problems of years and years in space (food, hygiene, lack of gravity, extreme old age and/or reproduction, child rearing, isolation, fuel, health care, who knows what else...) you'd think they stop and stay awhile.
Even with millions of years more advanced technology than we have they still can't break the laws of nature.

Yet people think that these aliens take on what would be a monumental task of space travel to come here and make circles in crops then go home!

It's not impossible that aliens could get here, but I think it's extremely unlikely that they are.

[LeCynthia]

There are too many mundane reasons for things in the sky that aren't even explored when someone sees a UFO. I think if another race surmounted the obstacles to get here then the effort would more than likely involve a big "hello" rather than a big "let's sneak around and kidnap sleeping humans and mutilate cows and generally hide from everyone until we're absolutely sure we can conquer them with our superior weapons." I also think it would involve one big ship instead of many little ones. I know, I know, landing craft from the mothership.

[Phil]

The closest stars to the earth are still a long, long way away, so while it's not impossible, it's far more likely that they'd be sending out unmanned probes or radio signals (ala SETI). If those turned up something interesting, yes they might consider manned missions. If someone did manage to overcome the problems of years and years in space (food, hygiene, lack of gravity, extreme old age and/or reproduction, child rearing, isolation, fuel, health care, who knows what else...) you'd think they stop and stay awhile. . .

I would caution against speculatin with an anthro-centric (?) bias. There's no reason to think that were there other intelligent life forms in the universe they'd be constrained to the same limits as human beings.

Perhaps they live thousands of years like a redwood tree, instead of 75 or 80 like a human. So long stretches in space would not affect them the same way it would us.

Perhaps they evolved under different gravity constraints.

Perhaops their means of reporoduction precludes having a partner.

Perhaps they are able to sustain themselves in ways that don't involve the intake of organic matter.

Yes, these are all elements of science fiction at this point, but things that I think are important to consiser when speculating about the existence of other life out there.

Having said that, the default position for this skeptic would be, I don't discount alien visitation by any stretch, but I have yet to see any evidence for it.

[CurtC]

Even without our anthro-centric bias, space travel is still so so hard that it makes it unlikely that we've been found by an alien race. Just our little galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars in it. So let's say that these space-travelling aliens wanted to search our galaxy for life - how long will it take? I'm sure that you could weed out many of the candidate stars, because they're too close to the galactic center, or to young, etc., but that still leaves many billions of stars you'd have to travel to and check. And why would they even go to all that effort?

I don't think you'll find any skeptic who would "deny the possibility of UFO's completely." Instead, since it is so implausible, we'd need to see some really good evidence. And we'd expect that if they were visiting, we'd have boatloads of evidence. Instead we have nothing real.

[Hellbound]

CurtC,

Actually, for aliens that aren't too far away, they wouldn't have to search. We've been broadcasting various electromagnetic waves for some time now, so within a sphere of a bout 40 to 50 light years, these could have been detected and a near-light speed craft come back.

Not that I believe visitation has occurred, either, but we must be careful of our assumptions when stating a position. Just within 50 light years of earth there are dozens, if not hundreds of stars (I did some work on a scifi game about a future earth, and believe I had something on the order of 20 or 30stars within 15 light years of Earth, using standard astronomical databases. Don't have those handy to double-check, but included in these were several that were stable, older stars).

Of course, the number of stars close to Earth does provide some weight to your argument, as well. Unless they picked up our signals, even 50 to 60 light years away, with near-light speed travel, they could take centuries to reach us (if they did at all) by searching star to star.

[Jimbo07]

Yes, these are all elements of science fiction at this point, but things that I think are important to consiser when speculating about the existence of other life out there.

Pure fancy.

Two things to consider are the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox (both summarized nicely on Wikipedia). Basically, the Drake Equation is a guess at how many E.T. civilizations we may be able to talk to. I'm somewhat skeptical that the 7 variables have covered every contingency. For example, there seems to be no accounting for life radically different from ours. Maybe it's a moot point. The Fermi Paradox is basically... okay, so we're guessing at multiple civilizations... "Where are they?"

My personal feeling is that the evidence appears to show that our neighbourhood is not awash in E.T. radio traffic. Does that mean they don't exist at all? Hardly. However, my gut is starting to sow that little seed of doubt in my mind. There's an idea for a sci-fi story in here somewhere... 'thousands of years from now, people are using advanced spaceships to try to find E.T. and unwilling to embrace loneliness... or something.'

SETI must continue and a true skeptic would not declare UFOs impossible. For that matter, miracles, ghosts, unicorns, faster than light travel and quantum communication with parallel worlds (amongst others) should not be declared impossible. It's just that the evidence would need to be STRONG...

BTW, here's an untestable (by me) bet: If we don't develop (at least the underpinnings of) a workable FTL technology in the next 150 years, we will NEVER develop one.

[Serenity]

I was musing today about UFO's and woo, and thought I'd ask the opinion of all you out there about this.
Does a skeptic deny the possibility of UFO's completely? NO
While it would require an amazing amout of energy to propel a spaceship across the vast gulf of interstellar wossname, it isn't actually impossible, is it? NO
Is it possible that one, or more than one UFO sighting could have been visitors from another planet,YES, but highly unlikely. who, if they have any sense, took one look and buggered off to alpha proximi immidiately? I would... after I've checked on how my crop circles were doing and maybe added one or two.

John Jackson wrote:
Yet people think that these aliens take on what would be a monumental task of space travel to come here and make circles in crops then go home!Maybe they're agriculturists. We're the bees that make their honey so they tolerate us and we keep making honey. Crop circles are the objet d'art of the alien world.

[Phil]

Pure fancy. . .

Huh? Sorry, but what are you say is pure fancy?

Are you simply agreeing that non-anthrocentric elements are at this point science fiction? Or are you suggesting that considering them is pure fancy?

I'm a little thick, and I think I'm missing the point.

[ChristineR]

My comments were not so much based on anthrocentrism, but rather used anthrocentric language. Take food. There are many ways I can imagine an entity that does not eat per se, but they will have to get there energy from somewhere. For example, a species that photosynthesizes its energy would have to carry a source of strong light with it whereever it went. A species that was not evolved to live in an environment of strong gravity (like a planet) would have a very limited lifestyle.

Reproduction and age are interlinked. A long lived species will have to deal with "wearing out." Regrowth means more energy costs. Any sort of activity beyond standing in a forest in California and looking magnifigent means even more energy. The more energy a species puts into one individual, the higher the cost if that individual is killed. So either our aliens have extra energy costs and extra needs, or they need to reproduce.

So while none of this is impossible, it seems unlikely that even our speculative aliens would find space travel easy and pleasant, and we're back to requiring technologically advanced aliens. Again, they would likely either make themselves known, or hide themselves well.

[Azrael 5]

Anyone in UK(or maybe it streams I dunno)some UFO bloke is on Talk Sport James Whale show tonight saying he has evidence UFO's landed at the White House!
Or you may wish to knit wire wool. :D

[Phil]

. . . So while none of this is impossible, it seems unlikely that even our speculative aliens would find space travel easy and pleasant, . . .


They would if they had lots of good music to listen to.

[Serenity]

Reproduction and age are interlinked. A long lived species will have to deal with "wearing out." Regrowth means more energy costs. Any sort of activity beyond standing in a forest in California and looking magnifigent means even more energy. The more energy a species puts into one individual, the higher the cost if that individual is killed. So either our aliens have extra energy costs and extra needs, or they need to reproduce.Don't you think regeneration could replace reproduction more efficiently for extended pursuits? Especially if reproduction needed to be curbed. Maybe their advanced enough to live indefinitely?
they would likely either make themselves known, or hide themselves well.I like that! It's doubtful they've come all this way to @#$!*# with us.

[tsg]

I like that! It's doubtful they've come all this way to @#$!*# with us.

Who knows? Maybe the rest of the galaxy is so advanced that the only visitors we get are doing the galactic equivalent of cow tipping.

[Phil]

Don't you think regeneration could replace reproduction more efficiently for extended pursuits? . . .

That's an interesting point. In a similar vein, biological engineering could conceivably eliminate many of the problems facing our longterm space traveler before the journey was ever underway.

[John Jackson]

Any form of biology in the universe may be quite different to us, but I think that no matter what form it takes, it would be subject to darwinian selection to have evolved. This would put some constraints on the possible forms that alien life forms could take. (Just don't ask me what they are :D).

I think with space travel, the most likely 'beings' in the spacecraft would be some form of robot, perhaps with artificial intelligence, as they could be switched off for long periods of time and wouldn't require food, entertainment, and all the other things that organic beings would need.

[ChristineR]

Don't you think regeneration could replace reproduction more efficiently for extended pursuits? Especially if reproduction needed to be curbed. Maybe their advanced enough to live indefinitely?


Yes, I think that would be a good strategy for a space traveling race, but it's hard to see why a species would evolve that way. In other words, they're genetic engineers as well as rocket scientists.

[tsg]

Yes, I think that would be a good strategy for a space traveling race, but it's hard to see why a species would evolve that way.

Maybe they've been space faring for so long that it's become a factor for natural selection.

[Serenity]

Yes, I think that would be a good strategy for a space traveling race, but it's hard to see why a species would evolve that way. In other words, they're genetic engineers as well as rocket scientists.At some point a species would take control and evolve itself to meet its needs. Nature is slow and clumsy. I'm not at all saying that nature would evolve this way. At some point nature is pushed-out of the evolutionary picture - We control the vertical and the horizontal limits.

[Correa Neto]

A biological species, even with a limited lifespan such as ours, could very well send automated probes on non-FTL interstellar travels. Much less problems with acceleration, decelaration, no need for food, water and air storage, radiation shielding, just fuel, engines, sensors and processing units. Also, no problems with a bored crew that has nothing to do for most of the loooooong travel time...

Another -but much more expensive- alternative would be huge "generation ships", with small communities.

But, in both cases, I see no need for anal probes...

[Serenity]

A biological species, even with a limited lifespan such as ours, could very well send automated probes on non-FTL interstellar travels. Much less problems with acceleration, decelaration, no need for food, water and air storage, radiation shielding, just fuel, engines, sensors and processing units. Also, no problems with a bored crew that has nothing to do for most of the loooooong travel time...

Another -but much more expensive- alternative would be huge "generation ships", with small communities.

But, in both cases, I see no need for anal probes...True. I can't imagine a biological species especially with short lifespans attempting long space missions. Automated probes appear to be the way to go, especially to the outer solar system and beyond - at least for now. Generation ships are an interesting concept. Build them large enough (rag tag fleet comes to mind) and they could be an entertaining way to travel. One-way, self-sustaining, science oriented cruise ships. I hear Capricorn is a nice place to visit. I can't wait to sense what virtual reality will be like in the coming decade. Holodeck might not be so far-fetched. The expected increases in computer processing power should accomodate this in the coming years.

[Jimbo07]

Huh? Sorry, but what are you say is pure fancy?

Are you simply agreeing that non-anthrocentric elements are at this point science fiction? Or are you suggesting that considering them is pure fancy?


Maybe a little of both...

Most scientific searches focus on organic life with its tell-tale signatures (hydrocarbons, fossils, etc.). As well, we assume that some civilizations will go through radio communication at some point, regardless of what is done now. That is, serious exoscience focuses on at least two traits that are similar to ours. Other ideas are... well... fanciful, and the speculation of artists and dreamers, rather than robotic probe engineers. Now, just because considering it is fancy doesn't, per force, make it wrong. Some science fiction authors have made decent cases.

That's not to start a fight. As I said in my post, I'm worried that the Drake equation doesn't take this idea into account. Is it relevant? Are there other unmissed factors? Obviously the value estimates themselves still need to be further refined... etc.

I'm just concerned about your caution, is all. In the mainstream there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to assume that other life would face the same constraints as here.

[Phil]

Maybe a little of both...

Most scientific searches focus on organic life with its tell-tale signatures (hydrocarbons, fossils, etc.). As well, we assume that some civilizations will go through radio communication at some point, regardless of what is done now. That is, serious exoscience focuses on at least two traits that are similar to ours. Other ideas are... well... fanciful, and the speculation of artists and dreamers, rather than robotic probe engineers. Now, just because considering it is fancy doesn't, per force, make it wrong. Some science fiction authors have made decent cases.

That's not to start a fight. As I said in my post, I'm worried that the Drake equation doesn't take this idea into account. Is it relevant? Are there other unmissed factors? Obviously the value estimates themselves still need to be further refined... etc.

I'm just concerned about your caution, is all. In the mainstream there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to assume that other life would face the same constraints as here.

I didn't think you were trying to start a fight. I was just unsure of your meaning, and you have cleared it up for me.

I'll just say, I would agree that discussing the specific non-anthrocentric elements of a hypothetical alien race is pure fancy. After all, we have absolutely nothing on which to base our speculation, and we're limited by nothing but our own creativity. It is fundamentally just an exercise in imagination.

However, I think it would be foolish to seriously consider the problems of a longterm space traveler without at least a cursory consideration that our point of view could be skewed by an anthrocentric bias. And that's all I meant by my remarks to Christine.

I should clarify further: I wasn't suggesting that we assume the laws of physics don't apply to our ficticious travelers. Nor did I mean to imply that, as you mentioned, there is any reason to think that other life would not face the same basic constraints as we (eg. aging, dependence on gravity, need for sustenance, etc.). But unless the question is specifically "How would humans handle longterm space travel?", we should be open to all possibilities to ensure a well-rounded discussion.

[Jimbo07]

But unless the question is specifically "How would humans handle longterm space travel?", we should be open to all possibilities to ensure a well-rounded discussion.

Here, I'm with you. In fact, even 'how would humans...' is moot, because we have yet to tackle the (comparatively simple) trip to Mars. The one guarantee about technology is that if we ever do something, the how is likely to bear only a superficial relationship to how we envisage it now.

It's at least conceivable that some sufficiently advanced technology could enable extra-galactic aliens to take day-trips to earth. Maybe it's a conceit for me to believe that if I could do that, I wouldn't care about farmers, cows or Elvis... :boggled:

[Soapy Sam]

Not only is space rather large, two races would need to evolve intelligence and develop technology in a time period which overlapped sufficiently for them to contact each other. Unless there is some factor we don't know about, that seems unlikely - though it may be more likely where stars are closer together.

For example, I'm pretty certain there is at least one other technological civilisation of some sort somewhere in the universe right now. But what does "right now" mean if they are in a galaxy far , far , away? It means by the time any message from Earth reaches them, we will be long, long ago.

[Ryan O'Dine]

As a traveler from Blarnac in the Large Magellanic Cloud (we prefer the more poetic “Fat Gassy Man in Sky) I can assure you interstellar -- even intergalactic -- travel is possible. Mainly we come here for your Cheese Whiz, but since joining this board I’ve taken a shine to tacos.

A SciFi writer named Robert Forward once wrote a scientifically believable story about a tiny civilization that evolved on the surface of a neutron star. They experienced a super accelerated existence (kingdoms rising and falling in the course of a human lunchtime). It may be that “metabolic clock” differences could further complicate the identification of even nearby civilizations in a way that masks their presence from us and us them. Remember, it was only very recently that we discovered the low frequency communications of elephants.

Often you have to know what you're looking for before you can find it.

[TimmyBerry]

A couple of tidbits on alien life forms from sci-fi:
Douglas Adams ("Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") and his "super-intelligent shade of the colour blue"
Orson Skott Card ("Ender's Game") and his idea of hive intelligence.

Who says that intelligence has to be on our terms, though? (Aka: Maybe entire galaxies are conscious, and on their terms, we are but a short chemical reaction. :p )

[Jabur]

It is unreasonable to make guesses about whether extra terrestrials can or have visited Earth (we just don't have enough information - we don't even know of they exist or could visit us), but it is very reasonable to make a blanket statement and suggest that all reported UFO sightings are, indeed, NOT extra terrestrial.

[Correa Neto]

Well, if the UFO sighting was caused by an asteroid entering Earth's atmosphere, then, by definition the UFO was of extraterrestrial origin...
:runaway

[JMA]

Does a skeptic deny the possibility of UFO's completely?

No, but he also knows that the argument to ignorance ("you can't explain this case so it's extraterrestrial" or "you can't explain this photo so it's extraterrestrial") is a fallacy...

[CurtC]

Maybe the rest of the galaxy is so advanced that the only visitors we get are doing the galactic equivalent of cow tipping.Fortunately, I read this before I took that sip of coffee. Is it original? Would make a good sig line for someone.

[tsg]

Fortunately, I read this before I took that sip of coffee. Is it original? Would make a good sig line for someone.

As far as I know, although I have been known to steal other's material without realizing it. You're welcome to it.

[Jon.]

A couple of tidbits on alien life forms from sci-fi:
Douglas Adams ("Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") and his "super-intelligent shade of the colour blue"
Orson Skott Card ("Ender's Game") and his idea of hive intelligence.

Adams was, of course, writing primarily humour, simply using sf as a setting.

Card's hive intelligence, IIRC, relied on FTL communication (the humans called their version the "ansible") and what turns out (in Xenocide) to be something fairly mystical.

[Astrophotographer]

IDoes a skeptic deny the possibility of UFO's completely? While it would require an amazing amout of energy to propel a spaceship across the vast gulf of interstellar wossname, it isn't actually impossible, is it?

Is it possible that one, or more than one UFO sighting could have been visitors from another planet, who, if they have any sense, took one look and buggered off to alpha proximi immidiately?

Just wondering.


UFOs exist only as reports of "unidentified" events in the sky. UFOlogists use the excuse that they can not be identified and, therefore, are "somebody else's" advanced technology. They often refuse to state that the "somebody else" is "not of this earth" but that is what they are implying. There is no evidence to draw this conclusion. Just because an object is unidentified does not make them alien spaceships. Often these reports are full of inaccurate observations, poor descriptions, or are completely unverifiable.

I can go on a web site and declare that a UFO landed outside my house and little grey guys came into my home to abduct me or I saw a strange light traversing the sky in an unusual manner. There will be little questioning of what I report and it will be catalogued as some form of "evidence" even though I was making the story up.

I am not stating that all these reports are "made up" but I am stating that many of these reports are often inaccurate and/or exaggerated. This makes them hard to solve. The problem with many UFOlogists is that they often do not expend the necessary effort to solve the case or would rather believe the witness could not misidentify the planet Venus.

[Apex Rogers]

Actually, for aliens that aren't too far away, they wouldn't have to search. We've been broadcasting various electromagnetic waves for some time now, so within a sphere of a bout 40 to 50 light years, these could have been detected and a near-light speed craft come back.


While your point is certainly valid, an interesting point is that if these alien lifeforms have the capability of detecting our electromagnetic emissions, one would assume that they have dabbled in the technology themselves. Presumably, we would have found their transmissions just as they find ours. This does leave out the possibility that they no longer radiate their transmissions to deep space and instead they use different technology that eliminates this waste. I wonder if it would be possible to contain our EM waves if we so chose?

[Hindmost]

I really think one of the most difficult problems with intestellar travel would be the severe amount of radiation bombarding the craft. It would certainly be enough to kill human occupants in a very short period of time mainly due to high energy cosmic rays and radiation due to relative motion of space dust and the craft. Any other species out there with enough technology to build a ship would probly have the same difficulty--I am assuming they would have evolved on a planet with an atmosphere and magnetic field that limited exposure during the evolution process. (it may not be a valid assumption obviously). We would need to genetically enhance cockroaches and send them into space. For some reason they are just about immune to radiation and can live on postage stamp glue. The Scientific American magazine I just got about an hour ago has some info on this subject--it may be interesting.

glenn:boxedin:

[stupidquestion]

A big pet peeve of mine is using "UFO" as a synonym for "spaceship." "UFO" is an acronym for the term "unidentified flying object." The "flying" part is a bit presumptious, but it is essentially a neutral scientific term used pending investigation. Are there objects seen in the sky that a given observer cannot immediately identify? Absolutely. Obviously.

The flying saucer loonies have seized "UFO" and turned it into a biased term. While this usage is gaining widespread acceptance, I see no reason for skeptics to join in. It's an etymological distinction that can still be salvaged.

More to your point: I think the essence of skepticism is not prejudicing anything as inherently impossible; but also demanding evidence for particular claims.

[Z]

I have a feeling that, if and when we get a real, honest 'first encounter', it's going to be a little like Alien Nation - we'll be the settling ground for alien refugees, sufficiently like us to find Earth an appealing place to regroup.

[Serenity]

I have a feeling that, if and when we get a real, honest 'first encounter', it's going to be a little like Alien Nation - we'll be the settling ground for alien refugees, sufficiently like us to find Earth an appealing place to regroup.Interesting point, Alien Nation was a great concept which some said was a way of preparing the masses for first contact. I think that’s silly, but hey…. whatever works. I remember thinking while watching that we have a hard enough time accepting the differences in our own races, never mind an alien one.

[Hindmost]

Interesting point, Alien Nation was a great concept which some said was a way of preparing the masses for first contact. I think that’s silly, but hey…. whatever works. I remember thinking while watching that we have a hard enough time accepting the differences in our own races, never mind an alien one.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I really wonder how people would actually react to a true alien visit. I believe some of it would be very extreme. Many sci fi series have dealt with this on many occasions, but the writers usually had a tendency to assign human qualities to aliens most of the time. An actual landing might be more on the order over reaction no matter the aliens' actual intention. Orson Welles shocked quite a few with his war of the world senario...and it had commercials. I think I would bet on panic and some weird religious things. And maybe they could interpret some of the crop circles...:rolleyes:

glenn:boxedin:

have fun shoveling...I am thinking of staying buried.

[JMA]

Hmmmmmmmmm, I really wonder how people would actually react to a true alien visit.

A good book about this subject is: Harrison, A. A. (1997). After Contact – The Human Response to Extraterrestrial Life. New York : Plenum Press.

[Astrophotographer]

The flying saucer loonies have seized "UFO" and turned it into a biased term. While this usage is gaining widespread acceptance, I see no reason for skeptics to join in. It's an etymological distinction that can still be salvaged.

More to your point: I think the essence of skepticism is not prejudicing anything as inherently impossible; but also demanding evidence for particular claims.

Some UFOlogists will refuse to state the "ET" answer when pushed on the subject. However, they will insist that these are "somebody else's" craft based on the "sightings" evidence. I think this is hypocritical. If they can't say that they are alien spaceships then they need to identify who the "somebody else" is. UFOs are just unidentified events. Not one has been confirmed to be anything other than a misperceived event. The most honest UFOlogists will admit that 80-95% of the events reported are simply misperceptions and/or hoaxes. Is it not that great a leap to suggest the remaining 5-20% are also misperceptions and hoaxes that can not be identified as such because the witnesses exaggerate the events to a great extreme or are not going to admit they may be lying about what they reported.

If any UFO report was really an observation of an alien spaceship I would think it would be seen widely by a large group of people (not just a few isolated individuals) and could be resolved with adequate information. Having been involved in amateur astronomy since the 1970's, I know that there are a great number of us out there observing the skies on a fairly regular basis. With the exception of a few reports of strange lights (which could have been anything), no experienced amateur (that I am aware of) has ever reported a distinct UFO that could suggest an alien origin. That in itself, says a lot.

[Hindmost]

A good book about this subject is: Harrison, A. A. (1997). After Contact – The Human Response to Extraterrestrial Life. New York : Plenum Press.

thanks, I will add it to my list. I am about to buy the DVD "Proof," so I can add it to the order.

glenn:boxedin:

[Outhere]

We (or some of us) are always looking for the extraordinary and ignoring the amazing things right under our noses. Of course aliens have landed on other worlds--and they are us. We've walked on the moon, sent probes to Mars and the far reaches of our solar system. But it's not exciting anymore, it's almost prosaic because we know how it was done. Why we assume intelligences greater than ours visit earth, I can't imagine. At least we don't spend trillions of dollars to go to other planets solely to mess up wheat fields.

[JMA]

Most of the time, when I talk with ufologists, I just don't argue about life in space. I just say to the ufologists "let's stay on the issue of empirical proof for earth's alien visitation".

Of course there is probably life out there. But the question of the ufo phenomena is not "Is there life out there?". It's "Is there alien life visiting earth right now".

So the main issue is empirical proof of alien visiting earth right now, and there is no hard proof of that...

Of course this kind of argumentation convice only skeptical minds, because for the others, the simple facts that there is a lot of testimonies all over the world is more than enough to "prove" that the ufo phenomena can't be from a psycho-social origin...

[Correa Neto]

Some UFOlogists will refuse to state the "ET" answer when pushed on the subject. However, they will insist that these are "somebody else's" craft based on the "sightings" evidence. I think this is hypocritical. If they can't say that they are alien spaceships then they need to identify who the "somebody else" is. ...snip...

My personal experience with UFOlogists -ANEDOCTAL EVIDENCE WARNING- is that answer this because they have some "alternative" theories for UFO procedence: other universes, time travellers, advanced nazi planes and even the Earth's interior...

Hypocritical? In some cases, yes. In most of the cases I know, it's a matter of being deluded, naive, etc.

[3point14]

Thanks. I'm pretty certain that nothing's going to invest all that time and effort to turn up here and go cow tipping, I just wanted to see what the thoughts were. It's justs always annoyed me that my bookshop has ghosts and spirits lumped in with UFO's - seems a false grouping to me.

One thing that's been brought up that had never occured to me is the timescale thing - in order to have extra terrestrial contact, not only would the raace need to evolve suffciently near to us in space, they'd need to be overlapping in time too. This makeds me think that while the odds of there being life on other planets may be pretty good, the odds of us ever meeting them are pretty slim indded.

[ChristineR]

Interesting point, Alien Nation was a great concept which some said was a way of preparing the masses for first contact. I think that’s silly, but hey…. whatever works. I remember thinking while watching that we have a hard enough time accepting the differences in our own races, never mind an alien one.

The aliens in Alien Nation were so close to human that they could not be distinguished from humans wearing bathing caps.

Well, there were other differences, like super-strength, and being corroded by salt water (huh?), but it's amazing how many of them looked like hot chicks in bathing caps. In short, it was not only insanely anthromorphically biased, it was also set up to appeal to young men.

In short, I agree. It's silly. :)

[R.A.F.]

A big pet peeve of mine is using "UFO" as a synonym for "spaceship." "UFO" is an acronym for the term "unidentified flying object." The "flying" part is a bit presumptious, but it is essentially a neutral scientific term used pending investigation. Are there objects seen in the sky that a given observer cannot immediately identify? Absolutely. Obviously.

The flying saucer loonies have seized "UFO" and turned it into a biased term. While this usage is gaining widespread acceptance, I see no reason for skeptics to join in. It's an etymological distinction that can still be salvaged.

I wholeheartedly agree. The usage of the term "UFO" gives the followers a respectablilty they do not deserve.

...and I also have trouble with using the term "object" when merely viewing a light in the sky. How can they tell that the light is an actual, physical object?

Robert Scheaffer wrote a marvelous essay, The truth is, they never were saucers (http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/sheaffer.html) in which he explains how the whole idea of Flying Saucers was simply a journalistic misake. Kenneth Arnold described the "objects" he saw "flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water". He didn't say that the objects were shaped like saucers. But the interviewer (for whatever reason) wrote in his story that Arnold saw "saucers". And ever since then, there have been Flying Saucers sighted everywhere.

In my personal opinion, any sightings of supposed "Flying Saucer shaped craft" are either a mistake, or a hoax. After all, just why would visiting aliens shape their craft to conform to a journalistic mistake??

[Serenity]

The aliens in Alien Nation were so close to human that they could not be distinguished from humans wearing bathing caps.

Well, there were other differences, like super-strength, and being corroded by salt water (huh?), but it's amazing how many of them looked like hot chicks in bathing caps. In short, it was not only insanely anthromorphically biased, it was also set up to appeal to young men.

In short, I agree. It's silly. :)
Some of the guys are going to hate me for saying this, but that’s one of the reasons why I don’t like much of the programming on the SCIFI channel these days. Too much of an infatuation with “eye-candy” as a substitute for substance. Just my impression, I’m sure there are exceptions. I don’t think Alien Nation would’ve worked as well had the aliens not appeared remotely human while trying to integrate with us. It would be difficult for the audience to relate or empathize with a ball of energy being ostracized by its human boss – I’m not saying it couldn’t be done; just harder. More likely, whatever intelligence would descend from the skies would treat us like smart monkeys. If the IQ disparity was too great, expect to be disinfected off the planet in response to annoying resistance. First Contact will be a crapshoot. Reminds me of the game Civilization when your "settler" encounters a "Barbarian enclave (goodyhut)" sometimes you reap a reward and gain a new technology and other times it unleashes a hord of barbarians.

I like technical accuracy wherever I can get it, but I realize a story can sometimes suffer for it, especially in the “effects” dept. I’m always prepared to suspend some belief depending on the genre. Movies based on "real" science that treat its audience intelligently, are still my favorite. An obscure one that went largely unnoticed was “The Arrival”. If you like SETI subjects don’t pass this one up. I didn’t care for the sequel though much.

[Jimbo07]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I don’t like much of the programming on the SCIFI channel these days. Too much of an infatuation with “eye-candy” as a substitute for substance. Just my impression, I’m sure there are exceptions.

Battlestar Galactica.

No aliens.

Just 'what if everyday humans developed FTL drives, AI, etc.'

It focuses not on effects, nor even science, but character development and political drama. Good stuff.

[Serenity]

Battlestar Galactica.

No aliens.

Just 'what if everyday humans developed FTL drives, AI, etc.'

It focuses not on effects, nor even science, but character development and political drama. Good stuff.Maybe I should give it another try. I watched the first episode and couldn't get into it. :(

[Jimbo07]

Maybe I should give it another try. I watched the first episode and couldn't get into it. :(

But that might just be personal tastes. It's possible for both of us to look at the same painting, admit it's great, but not like it in the same way.

Any sci-fi TV has some amount of FX, but love it or hate it, this show is a triumph of substance over style.

[JMA]

Robert Scheaffer wrote a marvelous essay, The truth is, they never were saucers (http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/sheaffer.html) in which he explains how the whole idea of Flying Saucers was simply a journalistic misake. Kenneth Arnold described the "objects" he saw "flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water". He didn't say that the objects were shaped like saucers. But the interviewer (for whatever reason) wrote in his story that Arnold saw "saucers". And ever since then, there have been Flying Saucers sighted everywhere.

It clearly shows the influence of culture on testimonies... It's really fascinating! How can people responds so easily to the media "suggestion" of shape?

Is it because flying saucer are some powerfull meme?

[Serenity]

It clearly shows the influence of culture on testimonies... It's really fascinating! How can people responds so easily to the media "suggestion" of shape?

Is it because flying saucer are some powerfull meme?
I think that's part of it. People want to feel significant, a part of something larger than themselves. This desire in combination with wishful thinking can lead to exaggerations or a leap to false truths. I remember a time when I too, desperately wanted to see and share the UFO experience that I read and heard about. The more miraculous the event the stronger the shared bond and validation one gets.

[JMA]

It's justs always annoyed me that my bookshop has ghosts and spirits lumped in with UFO's - seems a false grouping to me.

Why?

Seeing ghost, seeing UFO... The link seems good to me...

It's "strange encounters" in both kind. Ghost, spirits, fairy, Loch Ness Monster, Alien... Isn't that the same kind of stuff?

[Hindmost]

Thanks. I'm pretty certain that nothing's going to invest all that time and effort to turn up here and go cow tipping, I just wanted to see what the thoughts were. It's justs always annoyed me that my bookshop has ghosts and spirits lumped in with UFO's - seems a false grouping to me.

sidebar: In the major bookstore near me, the New Age, witch-wiggler section is larger than the science and math section combined.

glenn:boxedin:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

sidebar: In the major bookstore near me, the New Age, witch-wiggler section is larger than the science and math section combined.

glenn:boxedin:

Ditto. Couple that with the fact that books such as Flim-Flam, and Demon Haunted World are classified as "New Age" and they don't carry them in stock makes for a very distressing situation.

[3point14]

Why?

Seeing ghost, seeing UFO... The link seems good to me...

It's "strange encounters" in both kind. Ghost, spirits, fairy, Loch Ness Monster, Alien... Isn't that the same kind of stuff?

I guess so - it's just that one I view as utterly impossible, and the other as being onnly improbable. (Albeit so improbable as to be only a very tiny squeak away from impossible) I'm prepared to be swayed though.

[JMA]

I guess so - it's just that one I view as utterly impossible, and the other as being onnly improbable. (Albeit so improbable as to be only a very tiny squeak away from impossible) I'm prepared to be swayed though.

I tought skepticism was first the suspension of disbelief, before examining evidences. So you shoudn't make any a priori difference between Ghost, spirits, fairy, Loch Ness Monster and Alien. A posteriori it's an other subject of course...

But let me say just that: there is a lot of similar stuff between the fairy phenomena and the ufo phenomena, especially abductions. There is some good books making comparaison between contemporary alien abductions and abduction by the elves (or demons) in the past...

And also think about sleep paralysis, alien abductions and ghosts. Very strong link also here...

[luchog]

Any sci-fi TV has some amount of FX, but love it or hate it, this show is a triumph of substance over style.
I didn't see it that way. To me, it was far more style than substance. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be as over-the-top gritty and grim and dark as it could possibly be (for a Sci-Fi Channel production)l; which created characters that were two-dimensional at best, and "plot point" at worst. None of whom seemed to be having anything remotely like a realistic reaction to anything.

There were also a lot of scenes that were just plain ridiculous, and clearly there only for eye candy, since there was nothing that could even remotely justify their inclusion. Not to mention the horrible acting, varying from flat and wooden, to ridiculously histrionic. Even Olmos couldn't pull out a credible performance; and one wonders who he pissed off to get stuck in that mess.

[luchog]

But let me say just that: there is a lot of similar stuff between the fairy phenomena and the ufo phenomena, especially abductions. There is some good books making comparaison between contemporary alien abductions and abduction by the elves (or demons) in the past....
I read one, I can't remember which, that pointed out some interesting similarties between the descriptions and drawings of both "elves" and "aliens" by those claiming to have been abducted by them. There were some strong similarties between one of the more common types of "elves", and the "grey" aliens.

[JMA]

I read one, I can't remember which, that pointed out some interesting similarties between the descriptions and drawings of both "elves" and "aliens" by those claiming to have been abducted by them.

Maybe it's Jacque Vallée's "Passport to Magonia"? It's one of the books I know who are dealing with this subject, even if I think that a real Historian could do far better and accurate than Vallée.

Well, I don't trust Vallée's writting because he's a ufo-believer, so if you know a book about this subject written by a skeptic, I would be interrested to learn about it :)