Once again, from my bud Chris Pirillo, comes this story that Steven Greer, head of the Disclosure Project (which claims the gummint is hiding UFO aliens etc. etc.), was on the Coast to Coast AM radio show the other night claiming that SETI — the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a scientific group looking for radio signals from space– is covering up a big signal they detected. Greer claims to have a mole inside SETI telling him this, and that if the C2C audience heard the mole’s name they’d know who he is– and he claims there are actually two people inside SETI who confirmed this.
Well, I know a few SETI folks. On the C2C program, Greer says specifically the mole is not my friend Seth Shostak, who must be "out of the loop" according to Greer. That’s a funny claim, since Seth is listed as a Senior Astronomer on the Leadership team. If SETI found a signal of any kind, he’d know within seconds.
Seth has his own radio show, sponsored by SETI, called "Are We Alone". I do a monthly segment on it called Brains on Vacation, and Greer’s claim may be featured in our next one. Frankly, I wouldn’t let Dr. Greer remove a splinter from my finger, let alone trust him when he goes on the radio with Art Bell and makes confusing and somewhat self-contradictory claims based on hearsay. He also mentions lots of people who have talked to him — never by name of course, but he claims they are household names — and then leaps into huge conspiracy theories and other silliness about this. If he had this kind of evidence, with solid backing, why doesn’t he just go public with it instead of sly sideways references?
Greer also claims that these scientists who slip him info are worried for their careers. That right there is enough for me to know that Greer’s claims are hollow. A scientist working under threat of suppression wouldn’t work for long. An astronomer who works for SETI isn’t doing it to make a lot of cash, they’re doing it because they love it, and know it’s important work– they’ve been through too much trauma to do this kind of work because it’s just a paycheck. Plus, I know that if I were a scientist who had rock-solid evidence of any of this, I’d find some way to get it out and go public immediately. Career? Working under a jack-booted heel is no career, and money would hardly be an issue to the scientist who holds this information. They’d be turning down million dollar book deals every day.
So Greer’s claims are just so much hot air. Less even. They’re vacuum.
Incidentally, I’ll note that we do detect intelligent signals from space all the time– ours. Military satellites, space probes, weather satellites, etc. If SETI did pick up a signal from a secret military satellite, then it would make sense that the government might intervene. I am not saying that Greer is even within a glancing blow of reality, but I am saying that even if what he claims is correct, then it may not have anything to do with aliens at all.
Seth just informed me that he’ll be on C2C tonight (Tuesday August 1) at 10:00 Pacific time to talk about this. I’ll be listening. That should be fun.
The people at SETI are trying to do something quite extraordinary– see if intelligent radio signals from space are reaching Earth. Again, I have to ask– isn’t this exciting enough? Can’t we let the scales fall from our eyes and see the Universe as it really is, and not have to make so much crap up about it?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:53 pm
As far as my understand goes it’s easy to insinuate anything just by invoking anonymity. If Steven Greer doesn’t say who passed him that information because they are worried with their carriers, it will be literally impossible to check the veracity of such news. The only thing this silly story will do is to give points to the skeptic faction.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Aren’t there radio frequency reflections from the Moon as well? Yet more ‘intelligent’ signals that SETI could pick up (though they probably try to avoid looking at the moon for that very reason) that still have nothing to do with aliens.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
I think these guys who come out and claim that SETI are covering up an alien signal fail to understand how most people would react if they really did find solid proof of one. I know I’d have the data on the internet before the government got their unmarked black sedans out of the garage, confidentiality be damned. You can sue me or jail me later, some things are more important than one person’s job or freedom.
August 1st, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Why would the government even cover it up? Does the government even control SETI at all? I hope nobodys dumb enough to believe that guy for saying so. Scientists are always loyal to their work, it’s just like Phil said, they aren’t getting rich off keeping quiet if they really do have all these big secrets.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Two things mystify me about these recurrent paranoid claims that NASA is covering up evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. First, we’d love nothing more than to find such evidence and there is absolutely no reason at all for anyone to cover it up, as Elyk says. NASA’s budget would skyrocket with such a discovery. Second, anyone who thinks the government is capable of covering up something as monumental as this must not pay much attention to national political news. The government can’t even keep a stained blue dress a secret.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:33 am
Can’t we let the scales fall from our eyes and see the Universe as it really is, and not have to make so much crap up about it?
===========
I think the fact they can’t get beyond trashy 50’s spy novels and 40’s alien invader movies strongly suggests the universe is beyond their imaginations.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 am
Boy, you guys don’t have much faith in a scientist’s ability to keep a secret and do his patriotic duty to honor his country and president when his confidentiality is required. There may be excellent reasons to keep such a discovery a secret. I sure am glad you guys weren’t involved in the Manhatten Project. Have you no sense of propriety?
A person whose world-view can not allow for the existence of super-intelligent beings secretly visiting or steathily inhabiting our planet is a person with an arrogantly narrow mind, wholly devoid of imagination. Quote me Fermi’s Paradox all you want, dogma has no place in science.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:33 am
Boy, you guys don’t have much faith in a scientist’s ability to keep a secret and do his patriotic duty to honor his country and president when his confidentiality is required. There may be excellent reasons to keep such a discovery a secret.
Such as…?
We just have faith in scientists not to keep secrets for secrecy’s sake, unlike governments.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:03 am
I don’t think Greer’s claims are credible. The SETI folks are for the most part a bunch of astronomers who probably don’t even have security clearances. They are used to open discussion of ideas and broad examination of evidence. Getting them to keep mum about something like this would be like telling a roomful of hungry babies to stop crying.
I think the SETI Enterprise is an honorable one, although its chances of success are presently low. It is probable that signals sent within or between highly advanced civilizations would be indistinguishable from background noise to us, so any signal that SETI detects is likely deliberately sent to communicate with us primates. Think of our civilization as a cosmic Washoe. To send such a signal, they would have to know we were here and capable of listening. The volume of space in which it is possible to detect this is growing by at least 50,000 ly^3/year and accelerating, sothe odds go up with time.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
Remember the Wow! Signal? Something that seems so trivial to a layman got labeled “Wow!” by an astronomer. Something tells me that if an astronomer got something of the scope Greer claims were detected, the astronomer would be running naked through the streets shouting “Eureka!”
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 am
Damn angrydwarf
I’m so glad that I don’t live in your world. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that there are “super-intelligent beings” out there, how would keeping it a secret make any difference at all? If they are malevolent, all our weapons would be like BB guns against tanks. If they are benevolent, the only reason for secrecy would be so that the “self perceived elite” could enrich themselves at the expense of the “hoi polloi”!
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 am
Let’s assume that Greer is telling the truth (I know, a big IF). If it’s not Seth Shostak, then the only other household names I can come up closely associated with SETI are Jill Tarter and Frank Drake. It’s pretty limited.
Anyway, we shouldn’t get our hopes up. This whole business about the shadowy government agents jamming their signals strikes me as fishy and technically very difficult to pull off long term.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
Also, I question why they would just tell Greer? That would be like telling a five year old about intelligent insects, and having him/her to spread the word. I would tell someone of some reknown, that I could trust, and let them break it open.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 am
SETI has been in existance for a goodly number of years ( ok, so, I don’t remember exactly how long. I’m old. Sue me). There have been a few false positives, as I recall. Mainly milatary satellite transmissions, etc. Before ANYONE yells wolf, they must be certain of their analyses or at least certain enough to refer it to other observatories w/o worrying how their colleagues will respond to a request for observational time. It’s expensive and limited, so be pretty sure you have a really hot signal before asking. Confirmation by non-SETI astronomers wil be required before going public. Then the fit can hit the Shan,,,
I look forward to the fun,,,
Sorry mr Greer. Your story doesn’t hold water. Any milatary/industrial complex would be only too happy to announce the news, as it would generate a flurry of cash flow to “prepare for the worst,,,”.
Remind me, how much are we spending annually for Iraq? That would be a drop in the bucket if we hear from an advanced species. So much excitement,,,are they friendly, or potentially dangerous? Be prepared for ANY outcome. Only 100,000,000,000 dollars need be spent,,,,today,,,
Gary 7
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 am
I believe they are out there,but anybody out there would be exponentially more intelligent…anything we learned from them would be what they wanted us to know.Why would they concern themselves with this primitive species? their is nothing for them to learn here…except how dumb we are! sweatfast
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
angrydwarf said:
>Boy, you guys don’t have much faith in a scientist’s ability to keep a secret and do his patriotic duty to honor his country and president when his confidentiality is required. There may be excellent reasons to keep such a discovery a secret. I sure am glad you guys weren’t involved in the Manhatten Project. Have you no sense of propriety?
Now now, you’re getting riled up over the wrong thing. Nobody said scientists can’t keep a secret to protect National Security (a la the Manhattan Project). What we’re talking about is keeping a massive secret simply because the news might cause panic or because the Government doesn’t know how to protect us, so they don’t want us to know about it. That kind of silence is paranoic, not patriotic.
>A person whose world-view can not allow for the existence of super-intelligent beings secretly visiting or steathily inhabiting our planet is a person with an arrogantly narrow mind, wholly devoid of imagination. Quote me Fermi’s Paradox all you want, dogma has no place in science.
Again, you misattribute. It is not that intelligent beings can’t be secretly visiting, it’s a question of where is the evidence. Sure, it’s a secret, that’s why there’s no evidence. Uh huh. Again, I’m not compelled to believe without evidence, and they don’t have any evidence of the secret, just some speculation and “it could be”’s. Sorry, that’s not convincing.
I’ll believe it when you show me the evidence.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 am
Why would they be “exponentially more intelligent”, sweatfast? It seems, you are assuming that those out there have developed interstellar (i.e. faster than light) travel. Extraterrestrial life could just as easily be aboriginal as advanced. In actuallity, a trick of fate could have made them stumble across the technology for interstellar travel, but they may not have made some of the technological advancedments that we have. It’s a long shot, granted, but so is the possibility that we are being observed by any.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:33 am
Angrydwarf wrote: “A person whose world-view can not allow for the existence of super-intelligent beings secretly visiting or steathily inhabiting our planet is a person with an arrogantly narrow mind, wholly devoid of imagination. Quote me Fermi’s Paradox all you want, dogma has no place in science. ”
Probably the most common argument from the ‘belief’ crowd: the idea that skeptics are in denial of possibilities and trying to hide from concept of intelligent life someplace else. While there are undoubtedly people like this out there, I would maintain quite strenuously that this does not apply to a majority of the skeptics.
Instead, there’s the simple factor that extraordinary claims require, and in fact demand, extraordinary evidence. What’s being offered by Greer doesn’t even bear a passing resemblance to such – he has nothing but rumor. The only people that could possibly find this convincing are the ones who desperately want to believe and will forego their self-respect and their logical thought processes to cling to it.
Then there’s another simple factor that fails to occur to a certain crowd: If the government wanted it hushed up, Greer sure as hell wouldn’t be on the radio about it, now, would he?
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Irishman and others say, “I’ll believe it when you show me the evidence.” That’s great, but I’m not submitting anything for evidence nor do I make any specific claims about UFO phenomena. I’ve made no comment on Dr. Greer, or anybody else, and made no claim about “aliens”. I’m saying people can keep secrets better than you. I’m saying that there can be compelling reasons to keep such a monumental event as extraterrestrial contact a secret.
Just Al says, “Instead, there’s the simple factor that extraordinary claims require, and in fact demand, extraordinary evidence.” That’s a real chestnut you dusted off there. It’s almost as good as: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Word games are fun, but they aren’t science.
Kaptain K, I wish you did live in my world, the world where “scientists” don’t make silly assumptions, such as, “If they are malevolent, all our weapons would be like BB guns against tanks.” Why would you assume that? Let’s keep it real, folks, there is no evidence that any alleged aliens are especially invulnerable. And again, “If they are benevolent, the only reason for secrecy would be so that the “self perceived elite†could enrich themselves at the expense of the “hoi polloi— Says you — though you may be right, it does seem a reasonable motive for secrecy. But there could be any number of other reasons for secrecy including international or planetary blackmail, threat of national embarrassment, a genuine or imagined threat from “them”, a fear of super-technology getting into the hands of our enemies, or simply a lack of anything definitive to say regarding the unfolding of the biggest event in human history — or any of a million other possibilities I haven’t thought of. I’m not about to make declarative statements about the matter without facts, something many of you don’t bother with.
What I’m really saying is that an alarming number of highly vocal “know-it-all” scientists (and other leaders of popular thought) throughout history have been close-minded fumbling imposters regurgitating the work of the greater minds that came before them. Nothing short of a total scientific paradigm shift will ever allow a change in their world-view, because they think they are smarter and they think they have the knowlege, so they “know” they have the answers … when all they really have is mere postulation and nary an original thought. That’s what happens when speculative science turns into dogmatic faith. The blogger’s quote above is a perfect example of this: “I like reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way.” I can scarcely imagine a more close-minded attitude; to have it uttered by a scientist is abominable. Often people who spout out the Fermi paradox have already made up their minds, using the “lack of evidence” as the deciding factor. That’s not science. Science is about eliminating the impossible in an unending effort to find the truth, not qualifying reality to reinforce our preconceived notions.
And for those who actually think I have an opinion about Dr. Greer’s SETI claims, I don’t, but if I was forced to form one, I’d say that there has been no physical evidence presented; there is an extreme shortage of credible, verifiable testimony; and the claims are indeed extraordinary. Therefore, it is just conjecture built on rumor. My suspicion is that Mr. Greer’s enthusiasm may have gotten the better of him this time. However, I do place a small amount of goodwill in Dr. Greer’s corner because I am aware of his work and among the vast circle of UFO nuts, he may be the closest to the truth. I think anyone who invests the time to watch “The Disclosure Project” press conference, and the two hours of supplementary interviews that accompany it, would be lying if they didn’t feel a little swayed by the mountainous anecdotal evidence.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Angrydwarf wrote “That’s a real chestnut you dusted off there. It’s almost as good as: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.†Word games are fun, but they aren’t science.”
Actually, that’s pretty much the definition of science. But to be more specific, if you’re not basing your ideas, postulations, or whatever you like to call it on evidence, then what ARE you basing them on? Guesswork? Wishful thinking? Did you arrive at your views on a pet subject because you found supportive and convincing evidence for them, or because you simply like a particular idea, and will accept anything at all that helps this along, regardless of how flimsy it might be?
You have made comments more than once now about “dogmatic science”, and I’m curious to know where this idea comes from. Are you totally unaware of the peer review process of publication, the part that requires anyone advancing a theory to present it to others of similar background specifically to test it? Have you missed out on the fact that the “fumbling imposters” you speak of are only going to be revealed through exactly this process? And finally, would you show me the specific circumstances of dogma in the scientific world where a new theory, of any kind, is taken on faith? Because it seems you and I have distinctly different reading matter.
I can go on – you provided numerous points that can be debated quite energetically. Instead, I’ll suggest that you do some more real research into your own views. Your bias against “scientists”, whatever you imagine them to be, demonstrates a poor understanding of the whole process, and your willingness to argue against something nobody even mentioned, such as Fermi’s Paradox, shows you’re not bothering to read and comprehend the other posts. If you had, you would have noticed that not one person scoffed at the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. They merely find the claims that Greer is advancing to be ludicrous.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 am
Extraterrestrial life could just as easily be aboriginal as advanced.
See the novel Footfall by Niven and Pournelle.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:47 am
Thanks, Kaptain K. I’ll check that out.
August 5th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Greer is a certified nut case. I have heard and read about him since 1997. I think this webpage says it all about Greer:
http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf
August 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I seem to recall that many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote an article in which he showed that it is very likely that humanity is the oldest civilization in the universe.
Does anyone else have any recollection of this? I’m guessing I read the article about 30 years ago.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
JIMK, I think Asimov was saying that the entire galaxy could be colonized by a single civilization in as little as 50 million years. Given the age of the galaxy it should be entirely populated by now. Since we don’t seem to have any interstellar neighbors, we must have a head start on all the other civilizations.
Just Al writes, “Instead, there’s the simple factor that extraordinary claims require, and in fact demand, extraordinary evidence.” to which angrydwarf responds, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.†Word games are fun, but they aren’t science.” to which Just Al replies, “Actually, that’s pretty much the definition of science.” Funny that you would find those positions incompatible, they are both paraphrased from Carl Sagan.
Just Al, you state, “Your bias against ’scientists’, whatever you imagine them to be, demonstrates a poor understanding of the whole process, and your willingness to argue against something nobody even mentioned, such as Fermi’s Paradox, shows you’re not bothering to read and comprehend the other posts. If you had, you would have noticed that not one person scoffed at the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. They merely find the claims that Greer is advancing to be ludicrous.” I think you are the one who needs to work on his reading comprehension. The attitude of the majority of posts, including yours, is ridicule. If you defend your position with ridicule, how can you be taken seriously? That Fermi’s paradox is brought up in a topic like this is inevitable; “Where’s the evidence?” is the battle cry of the debunker, which is no more convincing that the batherings of a UFO cultist. Fermi’s paradox is how smart people attempt to deflate the very notion of aliens. Many “scientists” feel that if they can quote Fermi, that makes them smart like Fermi, not unlike the methodology employed by other cannibalistic faiths. Note that when I write the word scientist in quotes, it is a distinctly different animal I am refering to than that of a true scientist.
Just Al asks, “Are you totally unaware of the peer review process of publication, the part that requires anyone advancing a theory to present it to others of similar background specifically to test it?” and “… would you show me the specific circumstances of dogma in the scientific world where a new theory, of any kind, is taken on faith?” The problem is not so much new theories being taken on faith, it is old theories that refuse to die because of the blind belief and faith in our scientific forebears. When a scientist sees that 99% of his peers believe something, he’s very likely to believe it too, without a single critical thought. That’s where peer review goes out the window. Do you think Galileo Galilei benefited from peer review? No, the great minds of his time had him branded a heretic and a criminal and buried him in chains. That’s what happens when great egos are confronted with a version of reality that doesn’t match their own — they attack. This is what I mean when I say that dogma has no place in science. That’s how a great mind like Tycho Brahe can have the his own extensive observational evidence staring him right in the face and still reach the wrong conclusion because of his preconceived notions of geocentrism. It took his more open-minded assistant Johannes Kepler to see what the evidence was really saying. Even at his own assistant’s urging, with plenty of mathematical and observational data to back him up, Brahe would not change his world view because of his faith in the astronomers / astrologers / alchemists that preceeded him. You see, observational evidence isn’t everything, you also need some imagination.
Einstein, who said imagination is the most important tool a scientist has, and is considered one of the greatest minds in recorded history, developed his theory of relativity based on a conjecture that had infinitesimal observational evidence: the speed of light is constant. Some of his predictions are mindblowing compared to the science of the day — mindblowing even today. Naturally, such an altered view of reality took decades before it was accepted. All he had was a theory, much of which was later supported by tests, which is good science, but not proof. Some of it still can’t be tested almost 100 years later. Yet, today, almost every scientific mind accepts it. Someday, relativity will be widely seen as failing, just as Newton’s “laws”, as practical as they may be, fail to completely model physics. Just as compounds gave way to atoms — which gave way to sub-atomic particles which will eventually give way to something else, maybe strings — the current paradigm will give way to a new reality. How many scientist embrace string theory today versus twenty years ago? How many will embrace it twenty years into the future? How much of string theory is based on observational evidence versus mathematical musings? What about cosmology, something that can’t really be observed at all — is it not science because of a shortage of data and the impossibility of observing the “main event”? A lot of scientists accepted the big bang theory after a few decades of its introduction until it was almost universally believed. Now the big bang doesn’t look like the answer. Should it matter that 99% of scientists still believe it? Or that 99% of scientists didn’t believe it at first? I don’t see how it could not matter. Science has had many obstacles through out the ages, dogma (or if you prefer, “accepted reality”) is hardly the least of them. I don’t see how this era is any different.