There seems to be some confusion here. “UFO” is frequently not taken in the broad original context of “unidentified” but rather in the narrow common context of “alien spaceship”. This is something that the writer should attempt to be more careful with, but the reader should also watch for.

In this case, you seem to be jumping on people for equating anyone who claims to not know what they witnessed as someone claiming aliens are invading. Whereas I think the quotes you were linking to were about people professing their unexplained phenomena were evidence for aliens, rather than just leaving them as unexplained.

Believer: Aliens have been visiting the earth for 60 years

Skeptic: What evidence do you have to back that up?

Believer: You are obviously not a real scientist. I don’t waste my time talking to close-minded people like you.

Phil, I don’t know how you and your ilk deal with such ridiculous garbage like this without losing your cool. I tip my hat to you!

“Yet you refuse to share just WHAT that experience was…I must now join those who want you to elabrate…just what was that “experience”.”

Actually I have done, but just not with muppets like you that feel the necessity to insult others.

“I see no one jumping to your defense…to use your analogy, you’re all alone in a leaking boat.”

Why do I need someone to jump to my defense? I’m not claiming anything extraordinary, because in fact so many people have sightings that it’s just something ordinary. So your metaphor is incorrect, and I find it amusing that you think you have won the argument when I doubt you even know what the argument is.

Yet you refuse to share just WHAT that experience was…I must now join those who want you to elabrate…just what was that “experience”.

“…then it’s logical to say that you probably don’t respect anyone else’s opinons either who are in the same boat.”

I see no one jumping to your defense…to use your analogy, you’re all alone in a leaking boat.

Ouch! Ya got me.

Umm, same goes for intelligent life.

Umm, let’s try: couldn’t we expect to meet other humanoids?

Whether the universe was made for humans or humans made for the universe is not germain to my point. My point is, in light of the above information, isn’t it likely, that when or if we meet another intelligent species in our galaxy, it will be a lot like us, physiologically?

My opinion about earlier ET visitations to our planet, is, there weren’t any. Because I think that homo sapiens sapiens is quite capable of having thought out and built every edifice on our planet, from earlier ages. And, a lot of those edifices by hand. Just because we have left behind manual labor, doesn’t mean earlier humans could not have manually built thoses great edifices. No anti-gravity nor secret technology required. imho.

Not wanting to whine in public, I bite my tongue about some of the other posts.

IOW, if unicellular life is relatively common on planets otherwise worth terraforming, you might very well find yourself without a lot of candidates for expansion. Besides, either you manage to keep your population stable, or you are FUBAR, expansion or not. Exercise: consider the current growth rate of human population, find how many would have to be moved off-planet (to whatever destination) yearly to keep the things stable. Assuming more or less optimistic time to terraform a planet, estimate the number of such projects that would have to go in parallel… Basically, you need a very slow population growth if expansion manages to keep up with it and if you got that close to stable population, you might as well keep it constant in the first place. And with that the incentives for expansion are much weaker – it’s expensive, it doesn’t solve demographic problems, it’s not short-term and it’s going to be a massive resource sink all along.

ObUFO: the most ridiculous part of that is the “humanity is not ready, so we’ll contact select representatives” variety, seeing how those “representatives” proceed to wank around spreading the word to presumably not ready population… One would assume that after a couple of times they’d figure out that it would be more efficient to get rid of the middlemen…

“Your reasoning is faulty…read my post again…I said nothing about the opinions of “others”, only that I had no respect for YOUR opinion…which is why I used the word YOUR.”

No it’s not, if you don’t respect the opinions of someone who is being completely rational towards an unexplained personal experience, which is exactly what I have done, then it’s logical to say that you probably don’t respect anyone else’s opinons either who are in the same boat.

Thanks for the feedback. I shouldn’t have implied that being wrong isn’t embarrassing to scientists/skeptics; it certainly can be. But, as you pointed out, scientists are used to having their hypotheses and findings shredded at every possible opportunity by their colleagues while the believers aren’t.

However I don’t think a scientist (or skeptic) would consider being proven wrong a refutation of their core beliefs. Using the UFO/ET example, I’m skeptical that ETs have ever visited the earth because of a lack of evidence but I wouldn’t call my non-visitation stance a core belief. If sufficient evidence appeared tomorrow proving that ETs have indeed been visiting the planet for years, my core beliefs won’t have suffered. This is because my core belief is that, to quote Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If such evidence presents itself I am capable of changing my mind on a subject without having to change my core beliefs. In the end this is why I think it is (or at least should be) easier for a skeptic to change their mind: doing so does not run counter to a “core belief” but is a direct result of basing beliefs on evidence. I hope I didn’t misunderstand your point, if so I apologize. Thanks for getting me thinking.

1) Capture of sequestration of CO2 is a direct function of plate tectonics
2) Strong plate tectonics seems to require a close, massive satellite to “churn” the planetary interior
3) Binary planets of similar size appear unusual. Earth/moon system is unique in this solar system.
4) Formation of such binary systems from a collapsing solar disk appears to result in a large primary with small attendant satellites.
5) The Earth/moon system was, by all available evidence, a result of a major impact from an incident object of just the right momentum to eject a lunar mass into Earth orbit, w/o losing the mass completely.
6) Venus, with no large satellite to gravitationally churn its core, has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere and is unlivable.
7) Mars, too cold and dry for life to flourish.
Thus we have a Red Riding Hood scenario. Three planets in the life zone, one too hot, one too cold one that is just right,,,
9)Then, of course, we have comet and asteroid impacts which caused large scale extinctions and stimulated evolutionary development, but were insufficient to completely destroy ALL life.
10),,,and, of course, there’s our strong terrestrial magnetic shield, to protect life from ionizing radiation.

Without our large satellite, earth might well be just another Venus or MArs.

So, what are the odds another planet could fulfill our requirements? I expect, w/o such a large attendant satellite, the best we could hope for is a water world, with perhaps large brained water critters but no fire, no worked metal and no space faring technology.

I wonder why ANY visiting space critters would go to such extreme as to sequester ALL evidence of their visit. Sounds suspiciously like “God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith,,,”.

EVERY life form on this planet grows to the limit of the environment to support them. This appears to be an essential aspect of life. I expect it would be the same no matter where life evolves. So, where is the evidence that (other, non-terrestrial) life has tried to colonize THIS environment?

I’m from Missouri. Show me the evidence.

Gary 7

Your reasoning is faulty…read my post again…I said nothing about the opinions of “others”, only that I had no respect for YOUR opinion…which is why I used the word YOUR.

Sheesh…

Wow, that seems like a huge leap of logic to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by ‘this local galaxy’? I mean we don’t even know of any other Earth-like planets around the closest stars. There could be Earth-like planets very close to us with species that have evolved into tool-using beings but are still in something like our neolithic age. The possibilites are endless. Not a big deal but that statement really stood out to me.

As far as UFO’s are concerned, I would just say this; I think it is just possible that this planets has been visited by other intelligences in the past. Possibly as part of a survey or maybe scientific research. However, as a skeptic, I would have to agree that any assertion beyond that requires physical proof. Fuzzy photos and dubious eye-witness acounts are not proof. Therefore, I have to chuckle over the conspiracy stories these folks come up with. If we have been visited by a species advanced enough to develop interstellar spacecraft, I would be willing to bet they took one look around and realized what a low-rent neighborhood this planet is. I mean really, look at what the species which is at the top of the food chain has done and is doing to it. It’s kinda like a bear crapping in its own den, ya know?

David Brins most excellent book on the Transparent Society postulates that one reason for rudeness on the internet is that respondents are invisible, with no accountability. That makes it possible to be a jerk for there are no consequences. I NEVER respond to someone who identifies themselves as ANONYMOUS. If you want to talk, say it like a man and be prepared to take your lumps.
WE’re watching,,,

I’ve seen this argument before. Unfortunately, it directly contradicts my actual experience.

During the years when we had a BBS scene but pretty much no Internet – at least for the masses – over here in Germany, I often experienced all those kinds of attacks from people who were well known – and who, in face-to-face meetings with the same people they attacked online, showed themselves to be quite civil.

Similarly, I’ve seen the whole spectrum from very civil to unspeakably rude from anonymous users on Usenet.

This leads me to conclude that it really isn’t the anonymity, at least usually. It’s the absence of immediate feedback, and the absence of any other signals (like facial expressions) than naked text. In other words, it’s the same circumstance that so often makes irony and sarcasm fail on the Internet.

With only text, it it very, very easy to misinterpret what the other guy is saying. And once emotions run high, it is very, very easy to make mistakes even just reading what words are actually there. Which then makes emotions run even higher.

@peaches

Contrast this with scientists and skeptics who’s main goal is uncovering the truth. To such people being proved wrong publicly isn’t humiliating because it’s a chance to learn something.

I don’t think that’s quite right. I think being proven wrong is at least embarrassing to everyone, and the more public it is the worse it gets.

However, I expect it happens more often to scientists than to true believers, therefore scientists have usually learned how to cope with these feelings fairly well. Furthermore, it makes a difference how central the point in question is to your belief system. Having a central point of your world view proven wrong is always pretty traumatic … it’s just that this is rather less likely to happen if you take care to base your belief system on something that has already withstood fairly rigorous testing.

In other words, with regard to being proven wrong, true believers run a significantly higher risk than scientists, and are less prepared to deal with the fallout.

Of course, that’s a kind of analysis a scientist might make … and not one a true believer is likely to do …

What evidence?

I think it’s particularly hypocritical of Shostak to take home a paycheck for listening for radio signals (for Godsake) while searchin for extraterrestrial life, and then turn around and claim to know for sure that UFOs can’t possibly be here because he personally has never seen one. Can we then conclude he HAS heard ET’s radio signals? Because other wise, he is a scam artist and a fraud.

It’s disappointing, to say the least, to find so many smug people on this blog, all congratulating themselves on remaining strong and closed minded in the face of so much evidence. You should rename your blog “The Flat Earth Society.” Those people were sure they knew better, too. Seth should join. He’d fit right in.

“That really hurts…or at least it would if I had any respect for your opinion.”

haha, that proves my point about you being a bad person, as you just admitted you have no respect for the opinions of others. You’re so fixated that everyone who’s seen a ufo believes in aliens that you just dismiss the opinions of anyone who has seen anything unexplained to this day. One word describes you, that is “pathetic”.

That really hurts…or at least it would if I had any respect for your opinion.

Ah, the old, inspiration on the toilet thing,,,
Personally, I prefer the bathtub,,,

Intelligence isn’t the POINT of evolution, it’s just one more survival trait. As noted, apex carnivores get along just fine with efficient teeth and claws and the prefrontal lobes to anticipate the responses of their prey.
I should say, they USED to get along, then we came on the scene.

Dolphins and whales have much bigger brains than humans, but they’re not oriented to tool use. Tools are required to manipulate the environment.
,,,and that makes us the FIRST species with the potential to expand life into a (more or less) unlimited environment(space).
We still have no idea of the probability of planets which could allow the development of life, let alone all the coincidences that result in tool using intelligence. Without some evidence of such probabilities, we’re whistling in the dark. I expect if other such tool users existed, they would have already found their way here and taken over. It’s just the nature of a successful species to inhabit every available ecological niche. Since we are genetically linked to every other life form on this planet, it’s pretty obvious we’re the first such tool oriented species to evolve in this local galaxy.
If we succeed in making the transition to a space based economy, we’ll spread to every corner of the Milky Way within the next couple of million years. By then our descendants will look only vaguely
like us. Then we will have created our own versions of Vulcans and Klingons and from what I’ve seen walking the streets of Los Angeles on an average Saturday night, we’re already well on our way to creating subsidiary(tool using) species.

Anecdotal evidence is how humans relate to the local environment. See the link,,,

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results

David Brins most excellent book on the Transparent Society postulates that one reason for rudeness on the internet is that respondents are invisible, with no accountability. That makes it possible to be a jerk for there are no consequences. I NEVER respond to someone who identifies themselves as ANONYMOUS. If you want to talk, say it like a man and be prepared to take your lumps.
WE’re watching,,,