Show us material and photographic evidence, as well as independent, scientific analysis, or shut the fuck up
Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
481–490 of 673 posts
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow your reasoning at all. Unless intelligent life appeared everywhere in the universe spontaneously at the same instant, which seems rather unlikely, then someone has to be first. If the universe has, on the scale of potentially uncountable trillions of years, just barely reached a stage where the probability of life appearing has risen above "infinitely small" then there's nothing chauvinistic or anthrop…
> Unless intelligent life appeared everywhere in the universe spontaneously at the same instant, which seems rather unlikely, then someone has to be first. Yes, and for any given species, it is incredibly unlikely they are the first. > If the universe has, on the scale of potentially uncountable trillions of years, just barely reached a stage where the probability of life appearing has risen above "infinitely small"…
It's only unlikely that we are first if it's likely there are others. But we don't know that it's likely that there are others.
The argument "there's lots and lots of stars, therefore it's unlikely we are alone" is mathematically bogus. It presumes the chance that life arises at any given star can't be "too small". But there is little basis for making that assumption.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we don’t see aliens because they don’t exist, or we don’t see them because they are here already imo most likely is they exist, but space is just so unimaginable huge, and also Aliens can at most go close to lightspeed. They didn't beat physics nor invented portals / wormholes? > They should be here already. Least likely for me out of the three options.. just our tinfoil hat love :)
> and also Aliens can at most go close to lightspeed. You're an expert in alien technology and civilizations far more technologically advanced than we are?
I mean there is one thing we can safely assume: their vehicles have to operate in the same universe as ours, at least when they are meant to be in ours at some point.
Now they might know some tricks around the limitations of our universes physics, but even those tricks must do something measurably.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#484If anyone is interested in seeing rigorously analyzed video material, I recommend the YouTube channel of Mick West[1]. He is an experienced programmer that has written a software to combine available data into a 3D space. This makes it possible to recreate situations and validate/invalidate hypotheses by stepping through time and looking from different camera angles. He also analyzed the famous gimbal and flir videos (Spoiler: There is a straight-forward explanation for what they show) and deconstructed some of David Grusch’s statements[2].
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless intelligent life appeared everywhere in the universe spontaneously at the same instant, which seems rather unlikely, then someone has to be first. Yes, and for any given species, it is incredibly unlikely they are the first. > If the universe has, on the scale of potentially uncountable trillions of years, just barely reached a stage where the probability of life appearing has risen above "infinitely small"…
It's only unlikely that we are first if it's likely there are others. But we don't know that it's likely that there are others. The argument "there's lots and lots of stars, therefore it's unlikely we are alone" is mathematically bogus. It presumes the chance that life arises at any given star can't be "too small". But there is little basis for making that assumption.
Since we're in a thread that started with:
> if other life exists, the chances of us being first would be really low given the size and age of the universe
I assumed that I didn't have to re-state the assumption that other life exists as the basis for my argument.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#486Show us material and photographic evidence, as well as independent, scientific analysis, or shut the fuck up
Why would you want them to shut up? They have given information to those who can actually do something with that information - e.g. get into military and commercial workspaces, subpoena government and private sector persons for questions, seek budgetary audits and clarifications, etc.
A person says "I swear under oath that there is so and so place. Visit for yourself and see". This person is not allowed to take pics at those places. But the official visitors definitely can go see for themselves. The motivation can be "get first hand knowledge of whether budget is being wasted and whether people are being killed", for starters.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#487I’m a huge skeptic, but I’ve been following this very closely over the past few months. Fermi’s paradox has two good answers — we don’t see aliens because they don’t exist, or we don’t see them because they are here already. They should be here already. The paradox is about why we don’t see them. Being skeptical is different than doubt-by-default. A skeptic is curious and slow to judge. So with great curiosity, I’ve…
> Fermi’s paradox has two good answers — we don’t see aliens because they don’t exist, or we don’t see them because they are here already.
These are not "good" answers to the Fermi paradox, and definitely not the only answers. Much better answers (in my opinion) are things like: their signals haven't reached us yet; they haven't developed interstellar communications or travel yet; they haven't developed intelligent life yet.
I would think an alien spacecraft carrying the energy and resources needed for interstellar travel (including the return trip) would be pretty obvious and detectable even by amateur astronomers. Instead what we're doing here is chasing at shadows and grasping at straws. Credible reports deserve to be looked into, yes. But what is Grusch alleging here? Existence of a UFO crash retrieval program. Presence of non-human biologics. OK, experimental Soviet or Chinese military technology with dog or cat DNA counts. Of course the US military guards those in secrecy. When we ask, "did you find aliens?" they aren't going to reply with "sorry no aliens, and to prove it, here are the details of all the experimental Soviet/Chinese/US military tech we recovered."
PBS Space Time has a number of great episodes on the subject of aliens, including questions like how do we know whether humans are among the first spacefaring species: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTrFAY3LUNw
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#488What convinces all of the aliens to crash their UFOs in America? Or is every govt part of the conspiracy?
It does seem like America is the best as having UFO stories and alien conspiracies.
They have a recovery team. There are very few countries in the world that would refuse a US demand for access to a crash site and for full rights of alien artifacts. The Brazil case testimonials support this, as does the Italian/Vatican case preceding Roswell.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only unlikely that we are first if it's likely there are others. But we don't know that it's likely that there are others. The argument "there's lots and lots of stars, therefore it's unlikely we are alone" is mathematically bogus. It presumes the chance that life arises at any given star can't be "too small". But there is little basis for making that assumption.
Since we're in a thread that started with: > if other life exists, the chances of us being first would be really low given the size and age of the universe I assumed that I didn't have to re-state the assumption that other life exists as the basis for my argument.
That quoted statement is weird, since it doesn't make any use of the "size and age of the universe". I was assuming it was a poorly worded way of saying the size and age of the universe implied it was likely other life exists.
Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites
#490I’m a huge skeptic, but I’ve been following this very closely over the past few months. Fermi’s paradox has two good answers — we don’t see aliens because they don’t exist, or we don’t see them because they are here already. They should be here already. The paradox is about why we don’t see them. Being skeptical is different than doubt-by-default. A skeptic is curious and slow to judge. So with great curiosity, I’ve…
I don't get why no one ever throws out time travel as an explanation over extraterrestrial. Given the limit of the speed of information and the expansion of the universe, there's a VERY small area that would even be aware of the signals we've started sending out over the past century to come looking. But Earth would be an extremely interesting destination....for future Earth. Though personally the most likely answer…
That aliens (specifically the "greys") are future versions of humanity who have traveled back in time for some reason (usually specified to be the recovery of "native" genetic material to re-engineer their ecosystem) is a well-worn narrative within UFO mythology.
No one on HN "throws it out" because this is ostensibly a rational community and time travel is an even more absurd, less scientifically plausible solution than FTL or interdimensional travel. At that point we're just discussing comic book plots. If you believe we live in a universe that runs by comic book rules that's fine - it seems a depressing number of people here do, but there isn't much viable, intellectually grounded discussion to be had about that. You either agree with it or you don't.
I mean hell, let's throw Jacques Valee onto the pile and say maybe UFOs/aliens are fae taking on a modern form in order to feed upon humanity's collective fear of the other. Makes about as much sense as time travel.