And Then There Were Flying Saucers.

[László]

Sadly, if your gov had alien technology then they would have used it to kill someone by now

I figure someone leaked it to Apple, and the iPhone was invented to kill normal conversation.

 

[Tucson Thump]

Who Knows.
However
This guy is an "intelligence official". and how often do they tell the truth?

I do believe much of this is being "leaked" to provide justification to militarize space. As Eisenhower warned JFK, "Beware of the military-industrial complex". There has to be a convincing "threat" for the public to be in full support. However, the fact that if alien craft were here and were hostile it certainly seems from their ability to function in a manner outside of our understanding of physics that if there was any hostile intention that we'd all have been toast a long time ago.

As for seeing things that are unrecognizable, how can we honestly believe that we are the pinnacle of life in the universe, either in the dimensions we recognize or the ones we haven't discovered? As Ernst Mach said, "Man's understanding of the Universe is like a dog's understanding of quantum mechanics."

It is said in academic circles that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but it is upon anyone seeking to expand their understanding of something beyond their nose to to look at the evidence and evaluate it, keeping in mind that many academics often have their reputations built upon old theories and closed minds.

 

[Moondog Wily]

Well, apparently y'all have never looked at my profile! From my join date, I have made no attempts to disguise my origin!! Piccolomini Crater is my home and I have been living here (and typing amongst you) on earth far too long, just about time to catch a ride home!!! Eyes wide shut some might say ;~))

 

[deepender]

Sadly, if your gov had alien technology then they would have used it to kill someone by now

And you think they haven’t?

 

[aphantomvaper]

I saw a YouTube video and am convinced the government is hiding stuff from us.

 

[deepender]

I saw a YouTube video and am convinced the government is hiding stuff from us.

Nothing new in that. For a loo-oong time I was convinced that our government was not like all the dishonest, corrupt governments out there. Let’s just say that I’m not convinced of that anymore.

 

[László]

When I sent the article in my first post to my daughter, she texted back, "It's true. I know because I'm one of them!"

I'm not discounting the possibility...

 

[ViperDoc]

Loeb: “Here’s a paper I wrote about the evidence of aliens.”

A.I.: “Hold my beer.”

 

[László]

This will be a bit unpopular, but hear me out for a moment.

Let's propose - just for purposes of argument - someone's made contact with alien beings and/or found alien tech to reverse-engineer.

Let's imagine the pros and cons of sharing that information with the world.

Is it difficult to imagine the potential dangers if contact with, or information about, alien beings got into the hands of irresponsible or evil people, as it surely would?

What kind of manipulation using, for example, AI tools, could an aggressive rogue state or terrorists generate and give to alien cultures that might encourage them intervene politically or in a conflict, or provide weapons and technology?

Just thinking about human history, we have the example of a number of states asking more powerful states to intervene in internal struggles, with unintended consequences. I can think of a few off he top of my head:

In antiquity, the power struggle between Cleopatra and her brother brought the Romans in as allies on Cleo's side. The Romans under Caesar simply took over Egypt and made it an imperial province.

In Judea, the king and his brother's dispute, where one brought the Romans in to mediate, turned it into a client state and eventual Roman province.

In the late Middle Ages/early modern times, the Ukrainians brought the powerful Polish-Lithuanian kingdom in to protect them from the Russians. They simply took over the entire Western half of Ukraine (which is why lots of Eastern Ukrainians can be pro-Russian, and Western Ukrainians pro-Western; because they lived for hundreds of years under one or the other).

In any case, these weren't great outcomes for these societies.

Imagine the potential for social upheaval if, say, a civilization more advanced than us by tens of millions of years, could somehow time-travel and prove beyond doubt the Earth's religions are mere mythology. Bitter conflicts have been fought over less.

We can all think of other unwelcome problems.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is we have absolutely no idea what the heck would happen. Could be very, very bad.

So. You're in government in charge of national security, making decisions about the merits of transparency vs trying to prevent dangerous, unintended outcomes,

You might have a difficult time deciding whether it's more ethical to err on the side of protecting humankind or more ethical to err on the side of transparency. Or you might have firm opinions already formed. Either way, you might not be right. So, what happens if you're wrong?

If one errs on the side of protection and withholding info, maybe nothing bad happens. If one errs on the side of transparency, maybe bad things happen. Either way, it's a big responsibility!

Look at the unintended can of worms the internet, AI, social media, etc., have opened in a short time. The 'information age' hasn't all been rosy 'we're all in this together' stuff, and some might say it gets worse every day.

Yes we have a right to know most things, but once the cat's out of the bag, it's anyone's ball game.

It might even be an option to slowly dribble information out to acclimatize people to whatever information governments have.

Whichever side you come down on, It's an ethical problem worth considering, even if right now we're only mulling it over in the abstract.

 

[Troubador222]

I would never discount the idea that there is life on other planets or even that there is intelligent life out there somewhere. I really doubt they have visited us though simply because the distances between stars is so vast that most people have no concept of it. From what we do know about the Physics of the universe, it seems the speed of light is the fastest thing out there and to travel between stars, it would most likely take something traveling faster than that to make it in a reasonable time frame.

If some civilization could have found a way to exceed the speed of light, it seems to me it would take the expenditure of great amounts of energy and the would be detectable.

Even at say twice the speed of light, traveling from moderately distant stars would still take vast amounts of time. So, as I am making an assumption that a ship doing so,!would also have to carry lots of supplies to sustain what ever beings were in there, I would think it would have to be very large. It would not be the compact “flying saucers” that are popular in what is reported as being seen. So where are the “Mother Ships” and why don’t we spot those in our near space?

Another good question would be why would they come here if it means taking all that time and expending all that energy. Why would our little rock in the vast galaxy be that important?

One of the claims this guy is making is that some of our existing tech is from “Alien Spacecraft” that have been reverse engineered. If you really are interested, it’s pretty easy to find the path of our technological and scientific development. Once you start looking into it, it’s not that mysterious.

 

[László]

One of the claims this guy is making is that some of our existing tech is from “Alien Spacecraft” that have been reverse engineered. If you really are interested, it’s pretty easy to find the path of our technological and scientific development. Once you start looking into it, it’s not that mysterious.

Agreed!

This is the problem with those "Ancient Aliens" shows - they give mankind no credit for coming up with technological achievements in ancient times, yet the people, though not as highly trained as moderns, certainly were as intelligent and capable of brilliant thinking.

Just as we are.

Like I said in my first post, I'm skeptical. But it's an interesting topic, nonetheless.

 

[Bogner]

The More Time Goes By The More I Am Convinced That Everything We Have Been Taught And Told Is A Lie Or Distorted In Some Way From The Actual Truth.

 

[Rhythmisking]

This will be a bit unpopular, but hear me out for a moment.

Let's propose - just for purposes of argument - someone's made contact with alien beings and/or found alien tech to reverse-engineer.

Let's imagine the pros and cons of sharing that information with the world.

Is it difficult to imagine the potential dangers if contact with, or information about, alien beings got into the hands of irresponsible or evil people, as it surely would?

What kind of manipulation using, for example, AI tools, could an aggressive rogue state or terrorists generate and give to alien cultures that might encourage them intervene politically or in a conflict, or provide weapons and technology?

Just thinking about human history, we have the example of a number of states asking more powerful states to intervene in internal struggles, with unintended consequences. I can think of a few off he top of my head:

In antiquity, the power struggle between Cleopatra and her brother brought the Romans in as allies on Cleo's side. The Romans under Caesar simply took over Egypt and made it an imperial province.

In Judea, the king and his brother's dispute, where one brought the Romans in to mediate, turned it into a client state and eventual Roman province.

In the late Middle Ages/early modern times, the Ukrainians brought the powerful Polish-Lithuanian kingdom in to protect them from the Russians. They simply took over the entire Western half of Ukraine (which is why lots of Eastern Ukrainians can be pro-Russian, and Western Ukrainians pro-Western; because they lived for hundreds of years under one or the other).

In any case, these weren't great outcomes for these societies.

Imagine the potential for social upheaval if, say, a civilization more advanced than us by tens of millions of years, could somehow time-travel and prove beyond doubt the Earth's religions are mere mythology. Bitter conflicts have been fought over less.

We can all think of other unwelcome problems.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is we have absolutely no idea what the heck would happen. Could be very, very bad.

So. You're in government in charge of national security, making decisions about the merits of transparency vs trying to prevent dangerous, unintended outcomes,

You might have a difficult time deciding whether it's more ethical to err on the side of protecting humankind or more ethical to err on the side of transparency. Or you might have firm opinions already formed. Either way, you might not be right. So, what happens if you're wrong?

If one errs on the side of protection and withholding info, maybe nothing bad happens. If one errs on the side of transparency, maybe bad things happen. Either way, it's a big responsibility!

Look at the unintended can of worms the internet, AI, social media, etc., have opened in a short time. The 'information age' hasn't all been rosy 'we're all in this together' stuff, and some might say it gets worse every day.

Yes we have a right to know most things, but once the cat's out of the bag, it's anyone's ball game.

It might even be an option to slowly dribble information out to acclimatize people to whatever information governments have.

Whichever side you come down on, It's an ethical problem worth considering, even if right now we're only mulling it over in the abstract.

Assuming for a moment aliens have/are actually visiting Earth, if they wanted humans to be fully aware of their existence they could simply present themselves unequivocally in large population centers -which has not happened. So their concealed existence (contacts consisting largely of accidental sightings) would likely be intentional on their part.

Governments are usually loathe to make declarative pronouncements on things they don't have understanding of, protocols for, or control of. But unlike the old movie trope, I strongly doubt there would be widespread panic in the streets were people to learn that alien life visited Earth. We're pretty accustomed to amazing things, and the subject of alien visitation has been an active part of human imagination for a very long time. I think if it were proven beyond any doubt that there has never been any alien visitation of Earth, the main reaction would be disappointment and/or disbelief. But not panic if it were revealed to be true.

But it's possible the government is being circumspect about acknowledging alien contact because the aliens themselves have chosen to largely conceal their presence. So it's not impossible that governments may be more complicit in preserving the aliens own intentions than actively trying to hide information from the public for their own reasons.

 

[deepender]

This will be a bit unpopular, but hear me out for a moment.

Let's propose - just for purposes of argument - someone's made contact with alien beings and/or found alien tech to reverse-engineer.

Let's imagine the pros and cons of sharing that information with the world.

Is it difficult to imagine the potential dangers if contact with, or information about, alien beings got into the hands of irresponsible or evil people, as it surely would?

What kind of manipulation using, for example, AI tools, could an aggressive rogue state or terrorists generate and give to alien cultures that might encourage them intervene politically or in a conflict, or provide weapons and technology?

Just thinking about human history, we have the example of a number of states asking more powerful states to intervene in internal struggles, with unintended consequences. I can think of a few off he top of my head:

In antiquity, the power struggle between Cleopatra and her brother brought the Romans in as allies on Cleo's side. The Romans under Caesar simply took over Egypt and made it an imperial province.

In Judea, the king and his brother's dispute, where one brought the Romans in to mediate, turned it into a client state and eventual Roman province.

In the late Middle Ages/early modern times, the Ukrainians brought the powerful Polish-Lithuanian kingdom in to protect them from the Russians. They simply took over the entire Western half of Ukraine (which is why lots of Eastern Ukrainians can be pro-Russian, and Western Ukrainians pro-Western; because they lived for hundreds of years under one or the other).

In any case, these weren't great outcomes for these societies.

Imagine the potential for social upheaval if, say, a civilization more advanced than us by tens of millions of years, could somehow time-travel and prove beyond doubt the Earth's religions are mere mythology. Bitter conflicts have been fought over less.

We can all think of other unwelcome problems.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is we have absolutely no idea what the heck would happen. Could be very, very bad.

So. You're in government in charge of national security, making decisions about the merits of transparency vs trying to prevent dangerous, unintended outcomes,

You might have a difficult time deciding whether it's more ethical to err on the side of protecting humankind or more ethical to err on the side of transparency. Or you might have firm opinions already formed. Either way, you might not be right. So, what happens if you're wrong?

If one errs on the side of protection and withholding info, maybe nothing bad happens. If one errs on the side of transparency, maybe bad things happen. Either way, it's a big responsibility!

Look at the unintended can of worms the internet, AI, social media, etc., have opened in a short time. The 'information age' hasn't all been rosy 'we're all in this together' stuff, and some might say it gets worse every day.

Yes we have a right to know most things, but once the cat's out of the bag, it's anyone's ball game.

It might even be an option to slowly dribble information out to acclimatize people to whatever information governments have.

Whichever side you come down on, It's an ethical problem worth considering, even if right now we're only mulling it over in the abstract.

Yup

 

[László]

The More Time Goes By The More I Am Convinced That Everything We Have Been Taught And Told Is A Lie Or Distorted In Some Way From The Actual Truth.

I wouldn't go that far.

There's an inescapable fact to take into account, however:

An event can take place, and after that it's absolutely, necessarily, going to be subjected to interpretation.

Let's say an event takes place, any kind of event. It might be historical, might be scientific, might be sports; any kind of event will do.

You observe the event. Your observation is limited to your physical senses and your brain. Maybe your senses are perfect, maybe not.

Your brain tries to make sense of the observations within its own limitations. Those limitations might include, but are not limited to, your powers to perceive; your intelligence; your knowledge of similar events; your training in observation; your education; how your brain organizes the context of the event and categorizes it; the words your brain finds to describe it in a way that makes sense to you.

Then you want to tell someone about it. You want to choose the right words. You're going to most likely describe it in your language - remembering that all language is open to interpretation, even laws, which is why lawyers can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ad infinitum.

What happens next? The listener to your story also interprets the information you described. And they're going to do it as they perceive the story, using their language skills.

This has gone on forever. It's how truths are passed along and turned into legends.

One thing I learned when I became a young lawyer trying cases many years ago is that even eyewitness testimony, given by honest people who are trying to get it right, is often unreliable. There are dozens of studies proving just how unreliable witnesses can be.

So maybe you choose the perfect words that aren't open to interpretation, maybe your memory is 100%, maybe the context of your background and training can put the minutiae in perfect perspective.

But probably no one can do it all.

So history is an interpretation of events. That's why I read hundreds of history books, constantly. Every author stresses different facts and observations, and tells the story differently. Only by reading a LOT on the same topic can I reach a conclusion about what probably happened.

The same is true of any story, any observation, on down the line, and time also warps perspective. So does cultural bias.

Here's my favorite example of incomplete education and lack of context in what we were taught:

Kids are taught in school that the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD. Certainly, Rome was sacked. However, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (which we call the Byzantine Empire even though they observed Roman Law and called themselves Romani) lasted for another thousand years. The Eastern Empire only ended in 1453 AD!

More on that below.

Not only are we myopic about a gigantic slice of history, but within 60 years, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire had re-conquered North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Italy and other important bits and pieces of what had been the Western Empire. So it was Roman again for a while until a natural disaster hit. Few Westerners are even remotely aware of this.

Why did the re-conquest of the West by Romans 60 years later eventually fall apart?

Turned out there was a plague that killed millions of people, known as the Justinian Plague, and the population declined to the point where they couldn't support their armies in the West. There was economic collapse as well.

It happened. It's rarely taught.

So, it's 1453, and Western Europe's access to the spices and luxury goods of the East, traded as far as China and India, is completely cut off by the Ottoman Turks, who basically take over for the Romans, many of whom flee to Western and Eastern Europe.

Within a few years, the price of a nutmeg is worth more than gold. It's unobtainium. Pepper can't be bought on open world markets; it has to be smuggled. It's so valuable that they wind up cutting the pockets off sailors' pants to prevent them from going into the hold of the few ships that manage to get through, and pocketing what's left.

You were perhaps taught that sailors like Columbus found the American continents because they were great explorers, semi-scientists on a quest, and adventurers.

Well, not really; they were trying to find a route to China and India to get spices and get rich. They were just looking for a route that avoided the Turks.

So, why does this forgetfulness happen? Well, partly because our bias as Westerners focuses on a small area of history, and ignores the big picture. And partly because people are ignorant of facts that aren't taught until someone decides to study it in college.

By the way, the Byzantines kept the ancient writings and philosophers, and Roman customs and art alive. When the leading citizens who managed to escape Constantinople reached Western Europe when it was obvious things were going badly, with their more comprehensive education, preservation of books and art, etc., what happens?

You get the cultural exchange called The Renaissance.

Summing up: You can have perfectly well-intentioned people misinterpret events. They may be wrong, but on the other hand, they're not necessarily being purposefully wrong. It's hard to call every mistake caused by lack of big picture information a deliberate lie.

But yes, plenty gets distorted through the interpretive lens of human beings, and our limitations. It's always happened.

There's an alternative you know about?

 

[bodia]

I wouldn't go that far.

There's an inescapable fact to take into account, however:

An event can take place, and after that it's absolutely, necessarily, going to be subjected to interpretation.

Let's say an event takes place, any kind of event. It might be historical, might be scientific, might be sports; any kind of event will do.

You observe the event. Your observation is limited to your physical senses and your brain. Maybe your senses are perfect, maybe not.

Your brain tries to make sense of the observations within its own limitations. Those limitations might include, but are not limited to, your powers to perceive; your intelligence; your knowledge of similar events; your training in observation; your education; how your brain organizes the context of the event and categorizes it; the words your brain finds to describe it in a way that makes sense to you.

Then you want to tell someone about it. You want to choose the right words. You're going to most likely describe it in your language - remembering that all language is open to interpretation, even laws, which is why lawyers can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ad infinitum.

What happens next? The listener to your story also interprets the information you described. And they're going to do it as they perceive the story, using their language skills.

This has gone on forever. It's how truths are passed along and turned into legends.

One thing I learned when I became a young lawyer trying cases many years ago is that even eyewitness testimony, given by honest people who are trying to get it right, is often unreliable. There are dozens of studies proving just how unreliable witnesses can be.

So maybe you choose the perfect words that aren't open to interpretation, maybe your memory is 100%, maybe the context of your background and training can put the minutiae in perfect perspective.

But probably no one can do it all.

So history is an interpretation of events. That's why I read hundreds of history books, constantly. Every author stresses different facts and observations, and tells the story differently. Only by reading a LOT on the same topic can I reach a conclusion about what probably happened.

The same is true of any story, any observation, on down the line, and time also warps perspective. So does cultural bias.

Here's my favorite example of incomplete education and lack of context in what we were taught:

Kids are taught in school that the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD. Certainly, Rome was sacked. However, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (which we call the Byzantine Empire even though they observed Roman Law and called themselves Romani) lasted for another thousand years. The Eastern Empire only ended in 1453 AD!

More on that below.

Not only are we myopic about a gigantic slice of history, but within 60 years, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire had re-conquered North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Italy and other important bits and pieces of what had been the Western Empire. So it was Roman again for a while until a natural disaster hit. Few Westerners are even remotely aware of this.

Why did the re-conquest of the West by Romans 60 years later eventually fall apart?

Turned out there was a plague that killed millions of people, known as the Justinian Plague, and the population declined to the point where they couldn't support their armies in the West. There was economic collapse as well.

It happened. It's rarely taught.

So, it's 1453, and Western Europe's access to the spices and luxury goods of the East, traded as far as China and India, is completely cut off by the Ottoman Turks, who basically take over for the Romans, many of whom flee to Western and Eastern Europe.

Within a few years, the price of a nutmeg is worth more than gold. It's unobtainium. Pepper can't be bought on open world markets; it has to be smuggled. It's so valuable that they wind up cutting the pockets off sailors' pants to prevent them from going into the hold of the few ships that manage to get through, and pocketing what's left.

You were perhaps taught that sailors like Columbus found the American continents because they were great explorers, semi-scientists on a quest, and adventurers.

Well, not really; they were trying to find a route to China and India to get spices and get rich. They were just looking for a route that avoided the Turks.

So, why does this forgetfulness happen? Well, partly because our bias as Westerners focuses on a small area of history, and ignores the big picture. And partly because people are ignorant of facts that aren't taught until someone decides to study it in college.

By the way, the Byzantines kept the ancient writings and philosophers, and Roman customs and art alive. When the leading citizens who managed to escape Constantinople reached Western Europe when it was obvious things were going badly, with their more comprehensive education, preservation of books and art, etc., what happens?

You get the cultural exchange called The Renaissance.

Summing up: You can have perfectly well-intentioned people misinterpret events. They may be wrong, but on the other hand, they're not necessarily being purposefully wrong. It's hard to call every mistake caused by lack of big picture information a deliberate lie.

But yes, plenty gets distorted through the interpretive lens of human beings, and our limitations. It's always happened.

There's an alternative you know about?

I love you man! There's so much good stuff in your last several posts in this thread.

 

[Rod/]

Sadly, if your gov had alien technology then they would have used it to kill someone by now

Well actually, after the Roswell crash, Los Alamos Labs used reverse technology and many great “inventions” came out of this including and allegedly the IC chip, transistor and many other things. Myself and 3 of my friends have all seen UFO’s either here in New England, off the coast of San Antonio and in New Mexico
tHe tRutH iS ouT thEre…..
beware. Skeptics will always be skeptical…

 

[Bogner]

I wouldn't go that far.

Summing up: You can have perfectly well-intentioned people misinterpret events. They may be wrong, but on the other hand, they're not necessarily being purposefully wrong. It's hard to call every mistake caused by lack of big picture information a deliberate lie.

But yes, plenty gets distorted through the interpretive lens of human beings, and our limitations. It's always happened.

There's an alternative you know about?

My Comment Was A General Comment On Everything We Have Been Taught. I Could Have Better Clarified That.

Truth Is Truth So The "Spin" Or Interpretation, Verbiage, Etc. Isn't As Much Of A Factor When You Break It Down To The Simplest Level. Truth Is Truth And Anything Aside From That Is Not Truth. We Have Been Taught Many Things (Whether Intentionally Taught Or Mistakenly Taught) That Are Simply Not True And In Many Cases Outright Deception. If We Really Pause And Think About Everything, Virtually All We Know Was Told To Us Or Written, Etc. Very Little (In Comparison) We Have Truly, Actually Experienced And Proven For Ourselves...(Again This Is A General Statement For Any Topic).

Did We Go To The Moon? There Is A Picture Of Nixon On A Land Line Phone Talking To The Astronauts After The Flag Was Allegedly Planted. How Des That Happen? I Can't Even Get Good Coverage In Places On A Cell Phone In Places All These Years Later. In That Picture There Is Also A Photograph On The Wall Of The Moon Landing. How Did That Photo Get Taken, Sent Back To Earth, Developed, Framed And Hung On The Wall That Fast? The Footprint Image And The Bottom Of The Space Boot Tread Are Not The Same. We Have Been Told This Event Happened For So Long It Is Virtually Impossible To Even Consider It Didn't Happen Despite The Few Facts I Mentioned (And There Are More I Could Mention).

Is The Earth Really A Globe? Are You Sure It Is Not Flat? If A Person Were To Get A Tennis Ball And Get It Wet And Spin It Water Would Fly Off Of It. I Doubt The Speed Of The Spinning Tennis Ball Would Be Anywhere Near As Fast As We Are Told The Earth Spins Yet No Water Flies Off Out Of Control When The Earth Spins. What Is The Difference? Both "Objects" Are under The Same Rules Yet The Result Is Very Different. How Is That?

I Mention These Few Simple Things As Mere Examples Of My Initial Point/Comment That A Lot Of What We have Been Told And Taught Simply Isn't Accurate. Facts And Interpretations Can Change But Truth Is Always Truth.

 

[László]

I love you man! There's so much good stuff in your last several posts in this thread.

And yet I worry about being too pedantic!!

But thanks so much.

 

[RC Mike]

Try to imagine a life 1,000 years ago. What we take for granted today would be inconceivable to anyone alive then.

The fifteen miles I commute to work (crossing a large-ish river) would have been further than many people would travel in their lives. To make that trip in 30 minutes? Incredible, when walking in poor shoes is your method of transportation. Flying across distances that can’t even be conceived of? Unbelievable—impossible, even.

Most every facet of life would be like that.

A civilization that could cross the void of space is just as fanciful to us. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.