Real or Fake? You make the call "Dominican Republic, Haiti UFO Videos"

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/ufo-haiti.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/ufo-dominican-republic.jpg

Time for UFO sightings! (http://myparanormallife.blogspot.com/2007/08/dominican-republic-haiti-ufo-videos.html)

These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...:D

Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?

[Splinemodel]

I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

[giant]

real fake, but real cool. ;)

[sammi jo]

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like (http://www.moller.com) devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnxIITeNftE

Maybe Powerade should go to Haiti.

[iPoster]

http://i19.tinypic.com/6hgawev.jpg

Personally, I'd be very disappointed if we actually are alone in the universe. That would be a tremendous waste of real estate! At the same time, Einstein hasn't been proven wrong yet, so visiting other star systems is obviously problematic at best, unless there is some way to violate the law of relativity we haven't discovered yet...:???:

I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.

[@_@ Artman]

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like (http://www.moller.com) devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

Them Mollers are extremely loud.

What I look for in viewing any UFO footage.

1. Anomalies, something that really makes my heart skip. The overall movement and sound of the footage. Even some 9-11 footage can baffle your senses as to whether it's real or not. The fluidity of the UFO's flight and the woman(?) gasping in the beginning of the Haiti video does that, though it also makes me think it's staged.

2. Lighting and shadow. A given, but in the second video one of the craft passes just across the sun and that takes a lot of skill to pull off and the craft flying over and behind trees shows that this could be a professional job. Also, at the end of the Haiti video did you see the other lights (craft) converging? Stunning. But that lone cloud puts me off.

3. Realism. That feeling that what you are watching is real. If you take all doubt and believe what was recorded is what was there. I try to pretend that I am the one capturing the video myself.

This is one of my favorite UFO videos (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6764150767988135047&q). Just a couple outside in their backyard on Labor Day 2005 and suddenly...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/ufo-labor.jpg

This has a the realism (shaky camera, crickets and the couple's discussion throughout) that makes it feasible that they actually saw something that no one can explain.

I have seen a UFO myself, solid (looked like a flattened disc of mercury) and viewable in broad daylight (with binoculars no less). I have a friend who was with me that could corroborate the sighting.

[Akumulator]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/ufo-haiti.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/ufo-dominican-republic.jpg

Time for UFO sightings! (http://myparanormallife.blogspot.com/2007/08/dominican-republic-haiti-ufo-videos.html)

These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...:D

Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?

Not that difficult to fake something like this these days. The hand held feeling is a give away... It doesn't quite feel real. And the palm trees look fake to me. I'd say these were done entirely in something like Vue 6. http://vue6.com/

[Kickaha]

The palm tree between the two craft in the first one, and the palm tree just below and left of the craft in the second, are identical.

Rendered.

[@_@ Artman]

The palm tree between the two craft in the first one, and the palm tree just below and left of the craft in the second, are identical.

Rendered.

We have a winner...!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/same-tree.jpg

Here's the two videos together, with the frames stopped. How can the same tree be in two different locations?

I have to give the originators credit, it is a real good job. But they fubared by splitting the locations. From the looks of things, you could actually splice the Dominican Republic video ending with the Haiti beginning. Why would they split the two and think anyone would believe they were different locations? Oh well. Still fun to watch.

[addabox]

Interesting. I don't work with these tools, so my first response was "Holy shit!"

But after reading the comments and looking at examples from the linked to software, I can totally see how these can be rendered.

I think the psychology of this is interesting though. It started with FX houses figuring out how to add "flaws" such as lens flare to the rendered scene, then progressed through the BSG and Firefly look-- as if your space scenes were being shot by a handheld documentarian, complete with snap zooms, focus overshoot and camera shake. I especially like instances of camera wander, as if the operator were hunting around in the viewfinder for his shot.

Then there were the video game ads, that took all of that and added the "camcorder" look, so you got guys goofing around on "DV" when the meteorite hits or the ray gun does its thing or whatever.

All of that relies on the idea that "amateur equals truth", and it really does sell the verisimilitude. There's something about fx embedded in that "I just happened to be running my camcorder" look that is really persuasive. Which is ironic, because I assume the low res/funky thing actually hides a lot of rough edges and requires somewhat less polishing.

It's what makes the trailer for the JJ Abrams "untitled project" look so interesting-- flaming debris and bouncing Statue of Liberty heads just look more involving when it appears to be caught on the fly like that.

It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".

[snoopy]

I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.

:D

[@_@ Artman]

It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".

Ever seen Woody Allen's "Zelig (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086637/trivia)"? No CGI. None. Yet you are led to believe in this mockumentary that Woody Allen's character appears and participates in many of the famous and infamous events in history.

Here's the introduction of "Zelig" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6249382033244311334).

To create authenticity, the production used actual lenses, cameras and sound equipment from the 1920s, and used the exact same lighting that would have been done. In addition, Gordon Willis took the exposed negatives to the shower, and stomped on them.

In order to help create the look of genuine footage from the 1930s, DuArt, the lab that handled processing, called some of their experienced technicians (who were experienced with processing techniques of the 1930s) out of retirement.

Another more contemporary take on this was Robert Zemeckis' "Forrest Gump".

[hardeeharhar]

Bullshit, snoopy.

'fine tuning'

it may be low, but it is certainly not lower than 1/the total number of planets in the universe.

[@_@ Artman]

Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.

:D

Well, I think with the evidence of Black Holes/Worm Holes and the like there still is a chance that intelligent life exists somewhere. Even from another time.

I saw what I saw and so did my friend. It was real, physical, tangible and unforgettable. Whenever we run into each other we both ask, "Seen any UFOs lately?"

[sammi jo]

One of the strangest (famous) UFO sightings was the Bentwaters (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm) (UK) case in 1980. So much has been written about this incident, and as of yet, it remains a genuine UFO... ie an unidentified flying object. Of course this does not necessarily mean that (it) was driven or controlled by "aliens"... although the happenings that night near the Bentwaters AFB were weird in the utmost. :wow: What a shame that the video/film footage that were taken of the object(s) by US military personnel from the base have never been seen since, in public that is.

[addabox]

One argument I've heard against the presence of other intelligent life in the universe (it's a specific someone's argument, I can't remember who) goes something like this:

On the galactic time scale, interstellar colonization is a "flash" phenomena. That is, once an intelligent, technological species develops the means to travel between the stars, the time it takes to pretty much overrun the galaxy is relatively short, next to the life of the universe.

Of course, that's a pretty massive ratio-- say, 200 millions years for the outward expansion vs. many billions year window of opportunity. 200 millions years because we don't want to rely on speculative FTL drives, which currently appear to be unlikely, but rather some kind of very advanced hibernation techniques, or massively extended life-spans, neither of which violate any fundamental principles that we know of.

So if there are any other intelligent species at all, we could reasonably expect that at least some of them would have arisen some hundreds of millions or years ago, and that at least some of those would have endeavored to travel between the stars, and that even at sub-light speeds that there has been plenty of time for such a race to have gone from world to world, establishing colonies which themselves would become capable of undertaking space flight (the time it would take for a colony to become a full fledged civilization is to brief to even consider, at these time scales).

So by this point they really ought to be too numerous to avoid. The argument against this theory is, of course, that intelligent life arose in the universe only fairly recently, and there in fact has not been time for the process of colonization to take place.

But its unclear why that would be true. Conditions in the universe have not changed appreciably in the last 200 millions years, it really isn't that long a span, universe-wise Same for the trial and error of evolution on a galactic scale-- if it was going to happen, 200 millions additional years doesn't increase the odds that much.

Of course, there are a lot of other speculative scenarios: technological civilizations almost inevitably destroy themselves, they are there but theirmeans of communication is something we aren't looking for, etc.

Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.

[hardeeharhar]

I saw the math broken down at some point... Humans would have a hard enough time getting off of earth to usefully colonize planets within OUR solar system given the best case scenario predictions for technology -- you are still ultimately limited by light since communications take forever, the energy needed to support further exploration would be abysmally high etc etc. It is far more likely that if intelligent life existed out there it would have only been able to colonize local clusters of planets (if they exist) before we approach evolutionary time scales. Basically, we are either functionally alone in the galaxy or we are going to be fucked by our nearest neighbors -- but ultimately we can say that there will likely be no visits by intelligent species from the other side of our galaxy let alone other galaxies...

Personally, I believe all intelligent life destroys itself.

[snoopy]

. . . Basically, we are either functionally alone in the galaxy or we are going to be fucked by our nearest neighbors -- but ultimately we can say that there will likely be no visits by intelligent species from the other side of our galaxy let alone other galaxies. . .




Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.

:)

[@_@ Artman]

:wow: <tinfoil>Maybe we're going about this all wrong with this video in question. Maybe it is the Pentagon's next generation of weaponry from alien technology. And Haiti is just the rehearsal.</tinfoil> :wow:

[hardeeharhar]

Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.

:)
Mars probably can support life right now (and probably has it in some form or another)

[snoopy]

Mars probably can support life right now (and probably has it in some form or another)




What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

:)

[Tinkerer]

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

Right, no way Mars cam support intelligent life. The larger point is that if it turns out that not only is it possible for other planets to harbor life in the universe, but also that our nearest neighbor does as well, it just really hits home that it's quite likely the known universe is littered with life. Statistically speaking, this would indicate there's probably a huge number of advanced civilizations.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

:)

No coincidence. It's quite probably the deciding factor that has led to our rise as a species. There are two things that concern me about comments like this though.

1) We as a people tend to be so narrow-minded and self-centered that we think anything related to life on earth must somehow be unique to our planet simply because it's not the same to any of the 9, scratch that, 8 other planets in our solar system. This is old-world thinking.

2) We continue to operate with tunnel vision and seek out planets that are inherently earth-like, under the false pretense that all life in the universe must conform to the same set of conditions that gave rise to life as we know it.

[Splinemodel]

. . . But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

I have to say that I shot a snot rocket out of my nose from laughing. thank you. It's like you don't think humanity is worth the Earth's oxygen. There's an easy way to solve this on a personal level.

[Denton]

I saw what I saw and so did my friend. It was real, physical, tangible and unforgettable. Whenever we run into each other we both ask, "Seen any UFOs lately?"

Unfortunately, research shows that confidence about eye-witness accounts (studying mundane things like witnessing a crime, etc) and accuracy of observation are inversely related. Whatever you think you saw, I'm sure that it was compelling, but it was almost certainly mundane. The probability that it was a reflection/mirage, the moon, venus, etc (not knowing any details -- nor supposing that I could explain what you saw), is orders of magnitude more likely than even experimental aircraft.

[Denton]

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

:)

There is a LOT of water on Mars (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28may_marsice.htm). There is even more recent suggestion that there is liquid water on Mars (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/mgs-20061206.html).

[Denton]

I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

I agree with Jared Diamond, given the sordid history of "advanced" civilizations meeting primitive ones on our planet, we had better hope that (as intelligent beings) we are "alone in a crowded universe."

[Denton]

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like (http://www.moller.com) devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

After travelling light-years to get to our planet, "aliens" are not going to be content to play Zaphod and do a little fly-by. They are going to initiate open contact, or they're going to flatten us: either way, we're going to _know_ when they're here. So, yes, every UFO sighting is completely mundane. This doesn't mean that there isn't some interesting things going on with respect to UFOs, but they aren't aliens.

[snoopy]

There is a LOT of water on Mars (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28may_marsice.htm). There is even more recent suggestion that there is liquid water on Mars (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/mgs-20061206.html).

Thanks for that link: Underground ice kept from escaping the atmosphere. It wouldn't help complex life develop on Mars, however, but it could be used by a colony of humans from Earth going there.

The liquid water is obviously not enough to do much good, and it would not stay around very long. Mars is simply too small, not enough gravity.

:)

[sammi jo]

:wow: <tinfoil>Maybe we're going about this all wrong with this video in question. Maybe it is the Pentagon's next generation of weaponry from alien technology. And Haiti is just the rehearsal.</tinfoil> :wow:

:)

The late Col. Corso (http://www.drboylan.com/corso2.html) said a few interesting things about that... but there again, with so much material of this nature, it's impossible to satisfactorily prove, or debunk...

Col. Corso claimed that some of the technology that filtered into modern society in the late 1940s and 1950s evolved from material recovered from the wreckage of the alleged Roswell craft (!). I have no idea what to make of that incident; it may be the most famous "UFO" event in the public awareness, but it's by no means the most convincing. I remain most skeptical... but it does make one wonder about what actually happened there, considering that the government/military has provided no less than 4 different versions of the "truth"...implying that at least 3 of them are untruthful (or guesswork).

[iPoster]

People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on seeing the whole thing. Take South America for example. Every year in South America thousands of people turn up missing. Nobody knows where they go. They just disappear. But if you think for a minute, realize something: there had to be a time when there was no people right? Well, where did all these people come from? I'll tell you where: the future. Where did all these people disappear to: the past. How did they get there? Flying saucers, which are really, yeah, you got it: time machines.

:D

After travelling light-years to get to our planet, "aliens" are not going to be content to play Zaphod and do a little fly-by. They are going to initiate open contact, or they're going to flatten us: either way, we're going to _know_ when they're here. So, yes, every UFO sighting is completely mundane. This doesn't mean that there isn't some interesting things going on with respect to UFOs, but they aren't aliens.

I see what you mean, but there have been so many public sightings, official investigations and sightings by military personnel (http://www.nicap.org/index.htm) that there must be some degree of truth to them. Whether it's aliens, or some type of 'Top Secret' earth technology remains to be seen.

[hardeeharhar]

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

:)
Huh?

What does methane or ammonia have to do with the price of beans?

(and see what everyone else has said to your post)

[snoopy]

Huh?

What does methane or ammonia have to do with the price of beans?




An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.

:)

[Tinkerer]

An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.

:)

Life as we know it.

[hardeeharhar]

An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.

:)
Bullshit.

You don't know jack shit. There was a time when people thought that life couldn't withstand subfreezing temperatures or superheated water, both of which we have seen on earth. There is nothing that currently suggests that ammonia and methane aren't conducive to life -- there are organisms that produce copious quantities of both and somehow they survive.

In other words, stop making shit up to support your view of a perfect universe, with one perfect planet. It is utterly and totally demonstrably false.

[@_@ Artman]

Unfortunately, research shows that confidence about eye-witness accounts (studying mundane things like witnessing a crime, etc) and accuracy of observation are inversely related. Whatever you think you saw, I'm sure that it was compelling, but it was almost certainly mundane. The probability that it was a reflection/mirage, the moon, venus, etc (not knowing any details -- nor supposing that I could explain what you saw), is orders of magnitude more likely than even experimental aircraft.

These are the retards you have to watch out for. I and my friend saw what we saw with binoculars that day. I think the problem is that you didn't. So shut the fuck up. :smokey:

Or better yet, stare at this long enough and maybe you'll see Jesus...

http://yoism.reality-movement.org/images/Penn&Teller/JesusToast.JPG

[hardeeharhar]

or a smiley face.

[snoopy]

You don't know jack shit. There was a time when people thought that life couldn't withstand subfreezing temperatures or superheated water, both of which we have seen on earth. There is nothing that currently suggests that ammonia and methane aren't conducive to life -- there are organisms that produce copious quantities of both and somehow they survive.




Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.

:lol:

[@_@ Artman]

Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.

:lol:

How about these little buggers...

http://www.orbwar.com/spanish-orbs/orb-V-sequence2-crop2-600.gif

Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4541514422051017993&q=flock+of+ufos&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).

Everybody has this misconception that aliens will look like Star Trek aliens (humans in green make-up, pointy ears, antennae and costumes). Who knows?

Obligatory Yvonne Craig pic...sigh...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Marta.jpg

[hardeeharhar]

Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.

:lol:
How is methane or ammonia NOT conducive to intelligent life, theoretically?

[Kickaha]

Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.

So any intelligent life out there must be mammalian? Interesting self-centric view there. Come on, the point that is being made is that we are consistently finding life forms that sit outside what we previously considered to be 'necessary for life'... and that's on *our own damned planet".

The idea that all life has to be based on the same mechanisms as ours is laughable. If there are methane-philiac microbes (and there are), then there's no reason why there can't be higher lifeforms in the same range as well. To think otherwise is just amazingly limited.

[addabox]

So any intelligent life out there must be mammalian? Interesting self-centric view there. Come on, the point that is being made is that we are consistently finding life forms that sit outside what we previously considered to be 'necessary for life'... and that's on *our own damned planet".

The idea that all life has to be based on the same mechanisms as ours is laughable. If there are methane-philiac microbes (and there are), then there's no reason why there can't be higher lifeforms in the same range as well. To think otherwise is just amazingly limited.

I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.

[snoopy]

I for one welcome our immortal silicate crystal hive mind overlords.




Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.

:)

[hardeeharhar]

Not necessarily. There is no reason why a carbon-silicon hybrid couldn't exist.

[@_@ Artman]

Dust ‘comes alive’ in space (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2241753.ece)

SCIENTISTS have discovered that inorganic material can take on the characteristics of living organisms in space, a development that could transform views of alien life.

An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.

A similar rethinking of prospective alien life is being undertaken by the National Research Council, an advisory body to the US government. It says Nasa should start a search for what it describes as “weird life” - organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life on Earth.

[jimmac]

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like (http://www.moller.com) devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

Well that's one way to look at it. However it might be like this. If they're really in advance of us it might be like Professor of Theoretical Physics Michio Kaku says : " If you're going down a road and see an ant hill do you go over and try to sell the ants trinkets and technology to improve their lives? Or do you kick it over? Just because you can. ";)

By the way relativity as we know it is changing every day.

[jimmac]

Sorry! There is no silicon based life, at least of any complexity. Only carbon is capable of making the long chained molecules necessary to form a living creature. I don't think scientists were aware of this during Star Trek days.

:)


Never say never.;)

But under current understanding it seems unlikely.


http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0004212F-7B73-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=2

[Marvin]

Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.

There is a saying that goes something like: 'evolution doesn't make mistakes, it makes every mistake'. Maybe the universe is just full of mistakes and we happened to be one of the better attempts.

This could easily mean there are more life forms completely different from us but I still think that such an uncontrolled and random system is ultimately completely meaningless and worthless so I'm hoping it's not the case.

The videos are quite clearly fake, as soon as someone brings up a video of a saucer then it's immediately suspicious. It needs to be something people haven't thought of before like a glowing triangle.

Also, I don't know if people remember the effects in Independence Day but they were pretty good. For these kind of handheld quality films to appear after so many years with improvements in CGI software is not that impressive and if I'm being honest, it's getting a bit tiresome.

What I'd really like to see is someone try and fake the moon landing using equipment available in 1969 just to see if it was possible.

I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.

Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.

[iPoster]

Apparently a lot of people believe in Jesus after having their lives transformed by him. I guess some of them would have to be right.

But can you prove them wrong? (not that I'm saying it's correct) Guess there is only one way to be truly sure, and I don't intend to find out any time soon! :D

I was thinking statistically, if X number of people claim to see event Y but there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, how can you prove they are 100% incorrect?

[snoopy]

:)

I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.

:???:

[Kickaha]

:)

I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO

So does a frog floating in mid-air, but it can be pulled off with strong magnets. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rotTjRY5lRw

'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want. An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.

[snoopy]

'Appears' to defy 'my known' laws of physics, is the phrase I think you want.




Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified. UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.

It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.




An electric light bulb witnessed by primitive tribesmen is not proof of magic, after all.




Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.

:)

[Kickaha]

Appears to defy 'our' known laws of physics. The laws of physics are well established and verified.

You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...

What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist.

I am.

UFOs have been observed by visual sightings and on radar to display wild trickery, such as instant sharp-angle turns and lightning like acceleration from a stand still.

It's unlikely the material could withstand such maneuvers, much less the occupants inside.

There is a massive, huge gulf between 'unlikely' and 'impossible'. Throw in our pretty piss-poor understanding of much of physics, and things just get more fun.

Primitives did not know much. Most of today's real technology would seem like magic.

:)

BING BING BING BING BING! WE HAVE A WINNA!

From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?

Your argument holds as much water.

[addabox]

I guess it's time to drag out the old Arthur Clarke chestnut, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

It's interesting to consider, given the vast transformation of "what things look like" and "how stuff works" in the past, say, thousand years, what tens of thousands of years beyond what we have now would seem to us.

I think sufficiently advanced technology could be so utterly alien (as it were) to our notions of "thingness" and "action" so as to be a kind of invisible.

I'm not talking about the urban myth that the indigenous locals "couldn't see" Columbus' ships-- while much bigger and differently configured than anything that population would have encountered, the basic idea-- big thing floating on water-- wasn't that much of a stretch. At most, I think Columbus' fleet would have caused some scale confusion, with a person never having encountered a manmade object that large assuming that they were nearer than they were, and some category confusion ("are those trees on that thing?").

But the technology of Columbus' Europe represents only around a thousand years of development beyond the circumstances of the peoples of "Hispaniola", and that thousand years doesn't include the rapid transformative acceleration engendered by the industrial revolution.

Imagine ten, or a hundred thousand years out ( and if there is any other intelligent life in the universe a civilization with a hundred thousand year jump on us is not an unreasonable expectation).

Would we be able to identify the artifacts of such a culture as technology, at all? Would such technology even take material form, or would it be mostly comprised of manipulation of the underlying forces at work in the universe?

Or what if "technology", as we express it, is an idiosyncratic artifact of human consciousness, which itself could just as easily be an offbeat type of sentience, big picture universe wise?

For all we know there are plenty of "civilizations" (whatever form that might take) making themselves known through various communications channels which are literally unthinkable, to us.

Baseless speculation is fun.

[snoopy]

You forgot 'constantly being updated', 'constantly under scrutiny', 'not currently able to explain every verifiable phenomena in a laboratory setting'...

What, you think they're carved in stone? Obviously, you're not a physicist. I am.




Hey, your a physicist! Great, so am I. Likely, you've got a PhD and outrank my li'l old MS. At least we are on the same wavelength, I hope.

Of course I know science is constantly changing, but some things haven't budged in a long time and are well established. Classical mechanics still holds for the observations that I mentioned. The maneuvers observed would have incredible accelerations, which would stress the structure and it's occupants beyond their breaking point.

We know better than to say impossible, and I never said that. However, it is so improbable that I'm willing to base my beliefs upon it. Everyday I risk my life on things that have higher probability, like a bridge collapsing while I'm driving across. (Portland has lots of bridges.)




From the primitive's point of view, the light bulb appears their laws of physics, as they know them. Therefore, they are 'evidently not entirely material', right? And they *must* be something other than 'advanced technology', right?




Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.

:)

[addabox]

Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics. They observed how some things happen, but to call it their science is really stretching it. They let go of a stone and it would fall to the ground. They had no idea WHY it fell or what determined how fast it fell.

:)

I think in this context he means "their expectations of how things behave and what can be accounted for based on those expectations."

So a light bulb would be entirely inexplicable, in a number of ways (as a phenomena, in its materials, in the manner of its construction).

However, I still think that even here a light bulb has enough relationship to aspects of the primitive's world to be, if not accounted for, at least described. So: fire contained in bowl, or star fallen from sky, etc.

My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.

[hardeeharhar]

ok...

Newton would have been shocked by a lightbulb, and like members of so called primitive cultures, would have studied it to explain it. He would have gotten most of it wrong as would the primitives. Was Newton not a scientist? Were his explanations not testable? Would the primitive culture's explanations not be testable?

Science is simply a way to explain the universe in testable statements. There is nothing advanced needed.

[dmz]

Oh, come on now. the primitives did not understand anything about physics.
:)

The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.

[snoopy]

My thought about much more advanced tech is that we wouldn't even be able to go that far. We would literally have no idea what we were looking at, because nothing about its mechanisms or actions would refer to anything in our world.




What you say could be true up to a point. But a much more advanced technology would not violate what we already know about the laws of physics. For example, when Einstein gave us the theory of relativity, it did not violate the older, classical laws of motion -- It 'extended' them. Classical mechanics still hold in the usual range of mechanisms,

So the UFO motions that I've mentioned are subject to the laws of classical mechanics. The sharp turns and sudden bursts of speed are well below light speed. Yet, it's the rates at which velocity vectors change that make many of us suspicious. It suggests to me these are not material objects, but some type of illusions or image.

The really interesting task at hand is to figure out how the UFOs are produced. They are detected by our eyes and by radar signals, yet are not material. As long as we keep insisting UFO are material object made by some super advance technology, we will get nowhere. Personally, I don't have a clue where to start.

Yet, rather than looking elsewhere, most people continue to accept UFOs as material objects made by an advanced technology, usually alien beings. Consider a similar example, the crop circles. No one could figure them out, so they were said to be the works of alien space crafts. Once the technique of producing crop circles was revealed, however, it was immediately clear. We may have a similar situation here, though it may not be a simple hoax, as were the crop circles.

:)

[snoopy]

The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.




The Greeks were not primitive. Theirs was a highly advanced civilization and culture.

:D

[Denton]

These are the retards you have to watch out for. I and my friend saw what we saw with binoculars that day. I think the problem is that you didn't. So shut the fuck up. :smokey:

As I said, I'm sure that it was compelling.

[Denton]

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

The liquid water is obviously not enough to do much good, and it would not stay around very long. Mars is simply too small, not enough gravity.

You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?

Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily), they were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen: link (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure (think about the difference of boiling point at sea-level and at altitude on earth -- the force of gravity is essentially the same in both scenarios, only air-pressure is less). Mars lacks a substantiative atmosphere because it doesn't have a strong magnetic field, as the Earth does (Mars' core has long ago gone hard -- I believe that earth's core is kept molten by tidal forces from the moon), so the solar winds carry off a lot more of the gases on Mars. Someone will have to correct me if I have mis-remembered any of these details.

[Denton]

The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.

Eratosthenes' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) (276 BC - 194 BC) calculation of the circumference of the earth (and so the diameter as well -- they are linearly related) was about 16% too large. Amazing for it's time, but not quite as amazing as you claim.

[Denton]

:)

I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.

:???:

Many people believe in god: their belief does not call god into existence.

If you are beginning with the assumption, "extra-terrestrial, space-faring creatures are visiting Earth, largely in secret," I'm afraid that most of what will follow is nothing more than fantasy.

Here is a completely credulous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amnNgXRK_vo) report on the phenomenon called "rods" and here is a thorough debunking (http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/) of this phenomenon. Rods are a good, simple illustration of a phenomenon that is really interesting, but completely mundane. UFOs are no different, though the complexity of the explanation is higher because there are more "things" that a UFO could actually be.

[Denton]

The level of uncritical belief displayed in many of the posts of this thread, though not unsurprising (given the general culture of which we are all a part), is quite disturbing. We live in a scientific age, though there is just as much magical thinking present in our society as there seems to have been at any other time in history (at least we don't burn "witches" any more, though apparently some will still allow their religious beliefs to override their senses to such an extent as to choke their 3 years-old grandchildren (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/29/exorcism.death.ap/index.html) in order to exorcise demons). Give up your childish superstitions, your conspiracy theories, and other forms of silliness. Life is really so much better: escape to reality (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/)!

[snoopy]

You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?




I try not to be. :)




Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily) . . . The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure . . .




It looks like you are confusing two issues -- vaporization of a substance and lose of molecules to space. It's true that pressure affects the temperature at which a substance boils, or converts to a gas. (Chemistry 101)

However, we are discussing how these gases are retained on Earth, or lost to space. In the case of retaining or losing molecules, gravity is critical. Here is a quote from the very article you linked in your post:

"These gases are relatively rare on Earth compared to other places in the universe and were probably lost to space early in Earth's history because

• Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold lighter gases"

The very first item on the list is the importance of gravity, and says these gases were probably lost to space early on. Thanks for the supporting evidence for what I claimed.

:D




Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere . . . were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen:

link (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)




Here you are also confused. The production of oxygen was not from consumption of methane by early bacteria. According to your reference, oxygen was produced from carbon dioxide, not methane. Quote:

"CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria . . ."

Again, many thanks for supporting my thesis. Though we didn't discuss the production of oxygen, it was one of the critical processes leading to life on Earth. It took a long time, since most of the oxygen was initially used to convert metals to ores. Once this process was complete, more oxygen was available for animal life.

:)

[sammi jo]

The level of uncritical belief displayed in many of the posts of this thread, though not unsurprising (given the general culture of which we are all a part), is quite disturbing. We live in a scientific age, though there is just as much magical thinking present in our society as there seems to have been at any other time in history (at least we don't burn "witches" any more, though apparently some will still allow their religious beliefs to override their senses to such an extent as to choke their 3 years-old grandchildren (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/29/exorcism.death.ap/index.html) in order to exorcise demons). Give up your childish superstitions, your conspiracy theories, and other forms of silliness. Life is really so much better: escape to reality (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/)!

I've never seen anything in the sky that I could not identify very easily. I live in an area (near a mountain chain) where altocumulus lenticularis (wave) clouds are common, and some people have said that they look like "alien spacecraft" (!)... but having, to my knowledge, never seen an alien spacecraft, I wouldn't know. How common cloud formations get misidentified as "nuts and bolts" craft remains mystifying. People commonly misidentify Venus (or one of the other brighter planets) as a UFO, although it is hard to imagine how, except perhaps when in motion, the relatively changing position of (Venus) could make it appear that *it* is in motion. Some people (with a UFO obsession) have been known to claim that a perfectly commonplace, identifiable object, such as a Boeing 747 coming in to land at an airport, is an alien spacecraft. Really. I kid you not.

UFO reports are so commonplace, to the point of there being 10s of thousands of reports each year... and these do not include sightings that people don't even want to talk about or report, on account of ridicule (and other factors). 98% can be explained by mundane, or everyday reasons, and some as more unusual natural phenomena. But... there remains that 2% or so, a small minority that remain "unidentified". That does not mean to say that they are "alien" of course, just merely "unknown". Do you not think it is worthwhile that the "unknown" aspect of the field should be investigated with scientific rigor, without preconceptions, without the stupid baggage that has grown up around the subject? Even if we don't find out what people are apparently witnessing, such a study could provide potentially invaluable data on human psychology, at least. Unfortunately, the scientific community won't go there, and for reasons that appear to be somewhat unscentific... such as the fear of being "laughed at", or the fear of trashing one's career. What a shame, and a sad reflection on the state of science, where fear trumps inquiry.

The subject interests me for sure. But I have come to no conclusions either way. Re. alien spacecraft, I tend towards skepticism, mostly on account of the bounds imposed by relativity; the statistical likelihood of life existing outside our solar system doesn't even count taking the time/distance factor into consideration. However....I would love to see a real investigation, done with pure science in mind (kinda rare these days). Unfortunately, science relies on such things as "repeatability".. and UFO sightings tend not to conform. But an unbiased investigation, I guess is daydreaming and idealistic, in an age when unbiased investigations are less than fashionable, and when science now tends to be pursued only when there's a profit motive. But to trash the UFO subject, just for what it is, and conclude, without inquiry, that everyone who sees a "UFO" is lying, mistaken or hallucinating etc. by default, is not a scientific approach. Considering that many of the true "unidentifieds" are witnessed by observant people, such as pilots, police officers, military people etc... one would have thought that their eyewitness testimony is worth more than just a casual brush-off. And, when a solid radar return shows something behaving abnormally, like a sharp 90º turn without deceleration, then I believe that its worth looking into it... rather than burying one's head in the sand and lumping the entire subject alongside what's available on Fox Channel, or the Weekly World News.