When Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, worries that alien “nomads” could potentially arrive at Earth “looking to conquer and colonize,” should humanity worry?
briansd1
April 26, 2010 @
11:20 PM
I personally would love to I personally would love to see some communication with alien life.
It would be very exiting and change how we look at life on earth.
Aecetia
April 26, 2010 @
11:32 PM
Too late for that, it has Too late for that, it has already happened.
They certainly do exist. They They certainly do exist. They are nothing like us. They are so much more advanced than us (millions of years more advanced) that it would be very hard for us simply to comprehend what they are. The best mental picture of such an alien is probably that of an omniscient and omnipresent Christian God. (or, far more likely, that of a Buddha – an intelligent entity that realizes the irrelevance of its own existence, completely withdraws from interaction with the world, and enters Nirvana.)
They don’t conquer or colonize, because conquest and colonization are naive human concepts based on irrelevant base desires, and all intelligent species move beyond that sooner or later.
P.S. This is why I don’t find the concept of a Christian God so ridiculous any more. The genesis creation story is undeniably hokum, but there may well be a bored extraterrestrial looking over this planet and interfering here and there…
ocrenter
April 28, 2010 @
7:50 AM
Eugene wrote:They certainly [quote=Eugene]They certainly do exist. They are nothing like us. They are so much more advanced than us (millions of years more advanced) that it would be very hard for us simply to comprehend what they are. The best mental picture of such an alien is probably that of an omniscient and omnipresent Christian God. (or, far more likely, that of a Buddha – an intelligent entity that realizes the irrelevance of its own existence, completely withdraws from interaction with the world, and enters Nirvana.)
[/quote]
Buddha may have already outed himself as an alien 2500 years ago when he mentioned he was just one of many Buddhas that have visited this world and that there will be other future Buddhas to come. He also mentioned that there are infinite number of Buddhas and there are infinite numbers of “worlds” where they come from.
of course, the major teaching of Buddha is that he is not a supernatural being, but just a sentient being that reached Buddhahood through a long journey that ended in his enlightenment. meaning that the infinite number of Buddhas he spoke of in other worlds also reached their Buddhahood through their own journeys.
so an updated version of the Buddhist sutras could simply be: an ET from another world came to this earth in human form, talked of infinite number of other ETs from infinite number of other planets across the universe, and reported there will be other ETs that will continue to visit. And the central point of his teaching is that we can all reach the level of these other ETs through practice of loving kindness until we develop infinite wisdom and compassion.
svelte
April 27, 2010 @
7:11 AM
Wow, 10 of 12 people believe Wow, 10 of 12 people believe in it so far…!!
I’m assuming that people are including their God in extraterrestrial…
Arraya
April 27, 2010 @
8:01 AM
I don’t like the wording of I don’t like the wording of the question. Believe has a wishful connotation. I do want them to exist. however, I voted no, but I don’t discount the possibility. Conversely, just the probability of the optimum conditions for life sparking on our little blue planet is astronomical to a miraculous extent. So, for it to happen on another planet would make it just that much more improbable.
34f3f3f
April 28, 2010 @
5:46 PM
Arraya wrote:…just the [quote=Arraya]…just the probability of the optimum conditions for life sparking on our little blue planet is astronomical to a miraculous extent. So, for it to happen on another planet would make it just that much more improbable.[/quote]
How so? What is that probability when measured against not just one life form, but all life forms, and the vast complexity of the planet. It’s not just one probability, so it follows the more there are, the less improbable anyone of them becomes. There is nothing miraculous about it. Of a scale and complexity that it is beyond our comprehension is not in doubt, but only human arrogance denies us the freedom to accept that. That’s why we have a God, and why he is made in our image, or rather we in his.
Perhaps the question should be, would we know an alien if we saw one? Can you imagine how an insect conceptualizes us? It’s very limited capacity doesn’t allow it that luxury (or horror). Self awareness has no special attachments, other than in degrees of being self aware. Being relatively, highly self-aware does not mean being aware of everything, however. It is evolutionary, but probably absolute in its limits, or boundaries of comprehension. For that reason, we should never assume we can apply what we know with any confidence, to what might be. So perhaps alien existence can best be defined as improbably probable.
CA renter
April 29, 2010 @
1:44 AM
Okay, found the news clip Okay, found the news clip (Fox 6) of the San Diego sighting on New Year’s Eve 2008.
I was hoping Enorah could I was hoping Enorah could tell me whether the site describing various celestial beings was full of shite or not.
paramount
April 29, 2010 @
9:09 PM
I don’t see how life could I don’t see how life could originate around M45 (the so-called Pleadians).
M45 is primarily younger very hot, very large stars and also brown dwarfs. Not really the stuff of life.
Enorah
April 30, 2010 @
12:59 PM
paramount wrote:I don’t see [quote=paramount]I don’t see how life could originate around M45 (the so-called Pleadians).
M45 is primarily younger very hot, very large stars and also brown dwarfs. Not really the stuff of life.[/quote]
In the third dimension it is
right now in the third dimension it is
It was not third dimensional Pleiadians that seeded this planet
CardiffBaseball
April 30, 2010 @
1:19 PM
Always interesting stuff. Always interesting stuff. Should have taken Enorah for spirits (the beverage kind) when she was in Encinitas…
sd_matt
April 30, 2010 @
2:17 PM
“Believe in” has always been “Believe in” has always been a bad way of putting it IMHO.
Given the size of the universe my wager is “yes”
Enorah
April 30, 2010 @
12:58 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:I was [quote=CardiffBaseball]I was hoping Enorah could tell me whether the site describing various celestial beings was full of shite or not.[/quote]
I’ll look at it and get back to you
sdduuuude
April 27, 2010 @
8:57 AM
Possible, but not proven. Possible, but not proven.
meadandale
April 27, 2010 @
9:09 AM
If you’ve ever watched the If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
afx114
April 27, 2010 @
9:52 AM
Certainly the mathematics of Certainly the mathematics of the universe point to life existing elsewhere as meadandale states above. See Sagan’s explanation of the Drake Equation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dilKJ6uLCc8&feature=related. Whether or not they are “intelligent” is another question. Given that it has taken billions of years of evolution of this planet, and we’ve only now in the past handful of decades (a tiny fraction of our planet’s existence) been able to communicate and travel into space, how many billions of years would an alien planet need to exist and thrive before they would have the technology to come here?
For aliens to visit us they’d need to be able to travel at the speed of light or have found some way to navigate still-theoretical wormholes. The distances are just too vast.
“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
afx114 wrote:Given that it [quote=afx114]Given that it has taken billions of years of evolution of this planet, and we’ve only now in the past handful of decades (a tiny fraction of our planet’s existence) been able to communicate and travel into space, how many billions of years would an alien planet need to exist and thrive before they would have the technology to come here?[/quote]
Most of that evolution has taken place in the last 500 million years…and realistically it would have happened much sooner if it weren’t for the many extinction events that kicked the biosphere back to square one.
afx114
April 27, 2010 @
10:05 AM
meadandale wrote:Most of that [quote=meadandale]Most of that evolution has taken place in the last 500 million years…and realistically it would have happened much sooner if it weren’t for the many extinction events that kicked the biosphere back to square one.[/quote]
Correct. But extinction events aren’t unique to our planet. Alien planets would be susceptible to similar extinction events.
We also must not discount the possibility of civilizations wiping themselves out. We haven’t done so yet, but we’ve come close a few times. The jury’s still out on whether or not we still will.
NotCranky
April 27, 2010 @
11:02 AM
meadandale wrote:If you’ve [quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.
meadandale
April 27, 2010 @
11:04 AM
Russell wrote:meadandale [quote=Russell][quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.[/quote]
The poll question wasn’t “Is there extra-terrestrial life?”. It was “Do you BELIEVE in extra-terrestrial life?”. My answer, yes, is consistent with the comments that I posted.
NotCranky
April 27, 2010 @
11:40 AM
meadandale wrote:Russell [quote=meadandale][quote=Russell][quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.[/quote]
The poll question wasn’t “Is there extra-terrestrial life?”. It was “Do you BELIEVE in extra-terrestrial life?”. My answer, yes, is consistent with the comments that I posted.[/quote]
I shouldn’t have singled you out,my bad.I don’t get what there is to “believe in” and especially offer “spurious proofs” for, if you haven’t in your mind confirmed or denied it? Maybe it a matter of looking at the semantics differenly but I don’t even see why any of these explanations give reason to “believe”(or deny) anything.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
1:02 PM
I’m with meadandale.
If you I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.
NotCranky
April 27, 2010 @
1:25 PM
Nothing worng with scientific Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?
Allan from Fallbrook
April 27, 2010 @
1:49 PM
Russell wrote:Nothing worng [quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?
NotCranky
April 27, 2010 @
2:10 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?[/quote]
LOL. The phone is ringing of the hooks since I made that post. NWO “think tanks” calling.
CA renter
April 27, 2010 @
2:13 PM
Anyone have any answers for Anyone have any answers for what happened in Chicago in 2006:
Also, a few years back, there were some UFO sightings here in San Diego, and they had footage from various sources. This was on our local news one day, and then…nothing.
There have been plenty of UFO sightings with reports coming in from a wide variety of very credible sources and across large geographic regions (at the same time/day). For some reason, you see it on the news for only one newscast, and then…nothing. The fact that we don’t get to see the follow-up doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
Just thowing it out there to stir things up… 😉
Allan from Fallbrook
April 27, 2010 @
2:32 PM
CA renter wrote:Anyone have [quote=CA renter]Anyone have any answers for what happened in Chicago in 2006:
Also, a few years back, there were some UFO sightings here in San Diego, and they had footage from various sources. This was on our local news one day, and then…nothing.
There have been plenty of UFO sightings with reports coming in from a wide variety of very credible sources and across large geographic regions (at the same time/day). For some reason, you see it on the news for only one newscast, and then…nothing. The fact that we don’t get to see the follow-up doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
Just thowing it out there to stir things up… ;)[/quote]
CAR: My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and Korea. One of his squadron mates reported “strange lights” in “non-ballistic motion” off of Pt. Mugu around the end of WWII. These so-called “foo fighters” were reported during WWII and even into the Korean War, until Navy, Marine and USAF pilots were told it was a “career killer” to officially report UFO sightings.
My uncle told me he knew of dozens of pilots, including jet pilots flying at extremely high altitudes that had seen UFOs and the majority of their sightings were consistent in terms of description, etc, but the military did not want these officially reported.
These are not guys given to conspiracy theories, but are highly trained individuals, and often combat trained (i.e. not prone to hysterics or panic). Makes you wonder.
Arraya
April 27, 2010 @
2:38 PM
..
I always thought this was [img_assist|nid=13204|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=546|height=500]
I always thought this was a cool story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
The Battle of Los Angeles is the name given by contemporary news agencies to a sighting of one or more unidentified flying objects which took place from late 24 February to early 25 February 1942 in which eyewitness reports of an unknown object or objects over Los Angeles, California, triggered a massive anti-aircraft artillery barrage.
CA renter
April 27, 2010 @
3:15 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
CAR: My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and Korea. One of his squadron mates reported “strange lights” in “non-ballistic motion” off of Pt. Mugu around the end of WWII. These so-called “foo fighters” were reported during WWII and even into the Korean War, until Navy, Marine and USAF pilots were told it was a “career killer” to officially report UFO sightings.
My uncle told me he knew of dozens of pilots, including jet pilots flying at extremely high altitudes that had seen UFOs and the majority of their sightings were consistent in terms of description, etc, but the military did not want these officially reported.
These are not guys given to conspiracy theories, but are highly trained individuals, and often combat trained (i.e. not prone to hysterics or panic). Makes you wonder.[/quote]
Yes, my DH has a friend who’s a commercial pilot and he said that most pilots who’ve spent a significant time flying have seen things that they couldn’t explain. He said he absolutely believed in UFOs, and that most other pilots did, too. To hear your story, too, makes it even more interesting.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
3:32 PM
CA R, I just texted a friend CA R, I just texted a friend who flies for one of the majors. He said he’s hasn’t seen anything weird in the last 20 years he’s been flying.
But he does believe in Aliens.
CA renter
April 27, 2010 @
4:06 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA R, I just [quote=briansd1]CA R, I just texted a friend who flies for one of the majors. He said he’s hasn’t seen anything weird in the last 20 years he’s been flying.
But he does believe in Aliens.[/quote]
See if he’ll tell you what the general consensus is among pilots. I’m seriously interested in hearing his/her take on it (assuming he’s even talked with others about the subject, and assuming anyone’s willing to admit to such things publicly).
We only have one datapoint as far as commercial pilots go, but would like to hear what others have to say about the topic, in general.
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
4:17 PM
CA R, he has no idea what CA R, he has no idea what other pilots think.
I used to read science fiction (forgot the titles) At times, there would be sex between humans and Aliens (for example an Alien queen captures a human pilot). There were never any offsprings.
But that would be an interesting way for humans to evolve more rapidly.
Eugene
April 27, 2010 @
5:14 PM
deleted deleted
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
12:45 PM
CA renter wrote:
See if he’ll [quote=CA renter]
See if he’ll tell you what the general consensus is among pilots. I’m seriously interested in hearing his/her take on it (assuming he’s even talked with others about the subject, and assuming anyone’s willing to admit to such things publicly). [/quote]
Pilots can’t talk about “weird” stuff openly because people could then label them as unfit to fly. That’s why few pilots, if any, would seek psychological or psychiatric help.
NotCranky
April 27, 2010 @
3:29 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?[/quote]
My comment was for fun, but looking at recent history say the last 10,000 years and the number of believers today , would you say the script and such an indoctrination of it(perhaps bloody), is hard to imagine?
Allan from Fallbrook
April 27, 2010 @
1:48 PM
briansd1 wrote:I’m with [quote=briansd1]I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.[/quote]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
Whoops. I cannot wait to hear you talk your way out of this one!
briansd1
April 27, 2010 @
2:35 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance of the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.
Allan from Fallbrook
April 27, 2010 @
2:36 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from [quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.[/quote]
Brian: Well, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, its the same thing. See Einstein’s remark about knowing God’s mind. Then read Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc. These are some of the most highly trained minds in the world and utterly scientific. Interestingly, many of them are also very spiritual (NOT religious).
Refer to our earlier discussion about how Faith and Reason are mutually supportive. I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science.
Better yet, try getting into a real serious discussion about quantum mechanics and temporal relastics without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding His/Her/Its way into the discussion.
zk
April 28, 2010 @
3:44 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.[/quote]
Brian: Well, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, its the same thing. See Einstein’s remark about knowing God’s mind. Then read Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc. These are some of the most highly trained minds in the world and utterly scientific. Interestingly, many of them are also very spiritual (NOT religious).
Refer to our earlier discussion about how Faith and Reason are mutually supportive. I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science.
Better yet, try getting into a real serious discussion about quantum mechanics and temporal relastics without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding His/Her/Its way into the discussion.[/quote]
What Brian said was that the Christian God type faith thing is different from “the preponderance the
evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.”
Your response was to say that it is the same thing, and suggested he read what Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc.
I disagree strongly with your statement that it’s the same thing. To rebut your points one by one:
I haven’t seen anything in the works of Einstein, etc. that differs from what Brian said. If you’ve seen
something that does, feel free to show me.
Then you say that many of them are “very spiritual (NOT religious).” This seems to me to be irrelevant. Of course, there
are several definitions of “spritual,” most of them quite nebulous. There are, however, plenty of definitions of spiritual
that don’t include belief in the Christian god or any similar god. And in any case, just because those men had great scientific minds, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t subject to wishful thinking in the form of faith. In fact, understanding the enormity and coldness of the universe to a greater degree than most people would seem to me to make them more likely to need something to give them a meaning to their life. Unfortunately, needing it and it being true are unrelated in this case.
You say “I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science,” but don’t offer any reasoning for this statement, except to refer
to a previous discussion. I assume this is the one to which you were referring:
“When I was in high school (Catholic), I received an assignment in Comparative Religions to study Sufism and the poems of Rumi.
To say that the assignment was enlightening was to damn it with faint praise. It was incredible and I realized that the path to God and spirituality
does not know one denomination or religion or path. Enlightenment comes
from acceptance that true knowledge, regardless of source, is pure and to embrace that.
To me, Faith and Reason do support each other. They are the “two wings of enlightenment” and BOTH are necessary.”
So your study of Comparative Religions, Sufism, and the poems of Rumi enlightened you. Enlighten us. What did you find that convinced you that
faith and reason support each other? And that they are both necessary? (And what does that have to do with Brian’s statement about “the Christian God type faith thing?”)
While we’re on the subject of that post, you did mention that you don’t take the bible literally. But not taking it literally isn’t the same as not believing parts of it.
I’d be interested to hear how you reconcile, “I realized that the path to God and spirituality
does not know one denomination or religion or path.” with “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
As far as quantum mechanics and temporal relastics: “Relastics” is a word I’ve never heard and can’t find in my dictionary. What does that mean?
You imply that a serious discussion about quantum mechanics will be difficult without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding its way into the disscussion. “Force” is nothing like the Christian god. If I catch your meaning of “force” correctly, which I’m not sure I do. My point being that when you don’t fully understand something,
it’s more comforting to let your personal god find its way into the discussion than having a cold “force” find its way in there, but that doesn’t make it more likely
that your personal god exists than some cold “force.” And since we don’t understand all there is to know
about the universe, at some point we’re going to have to either use the preponderence of evidence to deduce what’s most likely, or have faith in something, or give up. Having faith doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would you have “faith” in something if the evidence points elsewhere?
Having faith in something as outrageously ridiculous as the Christian god (or any similar god) makes even less sense to me.
CardiffBaseball
April 28, 2010 @
4:09 PM
If you want to learn about If you want to learn about the various types of alien life forms out there (at least those occupying a physical body) it’s all documented here and you can thank me later. It’s on the web it must true.
As you do your research you’ll see that we share many common traits with Pleadians, Nordics etc.. You simply need to hover over Species and click on the various humans that exist.
Greys apparently come from Zeta Reticuli star system. We apparently are most closely related to the Pleadians, which Enorah claims to be from. Apparently they helped colonize earth, and left behind Immanuel.
Enorah can you compare and contrast the humanoids with the Greys, Reptilians etc?
Channeling my inner George Nouri/Art Bell…
Arraya
April 28, 2010 @
4:18 PM
I think this guy had it right I think this guy had it right about UFOs
“I do not feel obliged to “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” — Galileo Galilei
sdduuuude
April 27, 2010 @
3:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:I’m with [quote=briansd1]I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.[/quote]
The poll is a little limiting. Such things are best expressed in terms of probability. Maybe the poll should read:
That way, you don’t have to use terms like “believe” or “faith” at all, unless you go for 0% or 100%.
all
April 27, 2010 @
9:04 AM
Other than Ramans and Other than Ramans and Europe’s oceanic creatures?
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
2:36 PM
Just logged in for the first Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.
partypup
April 28, 2010 @
8:53 AM
Enorah wrote:Just logged in [quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.
NotCranky
April 28, 2010 @
9:30 AM
partypup wrote:Enorah [quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.[/quote]
Sounds to me like there would likely be sterility problems in this scenario. Also our DNA should vary much more from other primates as a result. Maybe natural selection is gradually stripping out the “extraterrestrial ancestral” component and we will soon be dragging our knuckles again?
partypup
April 28, 2010 @
12:15 PM
Russell wrote:partypup [quote=Russell][quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.[/quote]
Sounds to me like there would likely be sterility problems in this scenario. Also our DNA should vary much more from other primates as a result. Maybe natural selection is gradually stripping out the “extraterrestrial ancestral” component and we will soon be dragging our knuckles again?[/quote]
Not sure about the sterility possibility, but it only takes a small tweak in DNA to have a major impact on any organism. 96% of our DNA mimics chimpanzees, and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
Although at the rate we are presently “evolving”, your prediction of knuckle-dragging at some point in the future may not be too far off the mark 😉
Arraya
April 28, 2010 @
12:18 PM
partypup wrote: and look what [quote=partypup] and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
[/quote]
Not that much in my estimation.
briansd1
April 28, 2010 @
12:42 PM
Arraya wrote:partypup wrote: [quote=Arraya][quote=partypup] and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
[/quote]
Not that much in my estimation.[/quote]
hahah, Arraya and partypup, I can see both your points of view.
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
12:43 PM
Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like Humans
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News:
“March 26, 2009 — Chimpanzees share many of our genes, but dogs have lived with us for so long and undergone so much domestication that they are now serving as a model for understanding human social behavior, according to a new paper.”
Aecetia wrote:Dogs (Not [quote=Aecetia]Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like Humans
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News:
“March 26, 2009 — Chimpanzees share many of our genes, but dogs have lived with us for so long and undergone so much domestication that they are now serving as a model for understanding human social behavior, according to a new paper.”
Desmond Morris wrote in “Naked Ape”, that when our tribe left the trees and went to the plains we picked up many behavioral traits of dogs. It goes to show how impacted we are by our surrounding environment we are.
afx114
April 28, 2010 @
9:33 AM
Why do people assume that Why do people assume that aliens look like us? Or that they even have a face? The majority of species on our own planet don’t even have a face.
NotCranky
April 28, 2010 @
9:51 AM
afx114 wrote:Why do people [quote=afx114]Why do people assume that aliens look like us? Or that they even have a face? The majority of species on our own planet don’t even have a face.[/quote]
The thought process could be related to the one that was used to have God create us in His own image.
Enorah
April 28, 2010 @
9:51 AM
Yes, I love Ojai
Yes, we have Yes, I love Ojai
Yes, we have an organic garden taking up our front yard.
Nice to connect with you all 🙂
CDMA ENG
April 28, 2010 @
10:14 AM
“Sometimes I think the surest “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Calvin and Hobbes.
I lived down the street from John Lear growing up. John Lear is the son of Willian “Bill” Lear builder of the Lear Jet. His son John was a highly dicspline military type guy and a one time held the Worlds Record for the most flying time. He was nuts over the subject and ruined his career on his outspokeness about UFOs. You can catch him on Youtube.
He is an incredible individual but when he is talking about UFOs he just comes over like a nut case. If you knew the other side of this man would you know that he truely believes in what he says and really does not crave the attention.
CE
CDMA ENG
April 27, 2010 @
3:10 PM
If you are asking if there If you are asking if there are those among us that are from a different planet.. I would have to say… YES!
😛
CE
weberlin
April 27, 2010 @
4:33 PM
What evidence is necessary to What evidence is necessary to prove the existence of ‘extraterrestrial life forms’?
A lot of discussion on this board implies that life forms are carbon based. What about the possibility of ‘dark matter based lifeforms’.
Basically what I’m saying is, relative to the infinite possibilities in existence in the universe, we don’t know squat.
The very strategies we employ in searching for ET life are incredibly presumptuous.Is EM radiation the best form of intergalactic communication? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, we don’t have the technology to develop subspace communication detection devices.
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
8:12 PM
what the heck
I show up here what the heck
I show up here for the first time in many moons, claim my Extraterrestrial origins and no one even says hi to me
*off to cry on the mothership*
paramount
April 27, 2010 @
8:20 PM
Thanks for starting this Thanks for starting this thread Brian…
Enorah were you the one claiming to be from the vicinity of M45?
I seem to recall someone mentioning that in the past.
I believe it was the person who moved to Ojai if I recall correctly.
To me, the answer is 100% yes, there is life elsewhere and I have no doubts about that.
Enorah
April 27, 2010 @
8:23 PM
I did move to Ojai
The I did move to Ojai
The Pleiades among other places
yup
CA renter
April 28, 2010 @
12:24 AM
Enorah wrote:I did move to [quote=Enorah]I did move to Ojai
The Pleiades among other places
yup[/quote]
Hi Enorah! 🙂
Are you still enjoying Ojai? Like it better than down here?
Aecetia
April 28, 2010 @
12:45 AM
Hey Enorah! How is paradise? Hey Enorah! How is paradise? Are you growing an organic garden? You have to check in more often.
April 26, 2010 @ 11:19 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/Worl
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0426/Stephen-Hawking-aliens-alert-a-premature-or-primative-fear
When Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, worries that alien “nomads” could potentially arrive at Earth “looking to conquer and colonize,” should humanity worry?
April 26, 2010 @ 11:20 PM
I personally would love to
I personally would love to see some communication with alien life.
It would be very exiting and change how we look at life on earth.
April 26, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
Too late for that, it has
Too late for that, it has already happened.
Ancient astronauts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts
April 27, 2010 @ 12:07 AM
They certainly do exist. They
They certainly do exist. They are nothing like us. They are so much more advanced than us (millions of years more advanced) that it would be very hard for us simply to comprehend what they are. The best mental picture of such an alien is probably that of an omniscient and omnipresent Christian God. (or, far more likely, that of a Buddha – an intelligent entity that realizes the irrelevance of its own existence, completely withdraws from interaction with the world, and enters Nirvana.)
They don’t conquer or colonize, because conquest and colonization are naive human concepts based on irrelevant base desires, and all intelligent species move beyond that sooner or later.
P.S. This is why I don’t find the concept of a Christian God so ridiculous any more. The genesis creation story is undeniably hokum, but there may well be a bored extraterrestrial looking over this planet and interfering here and there…
April 28, 2010 @ 7:50 AM
Eugene wrote:They certainly
[quote=Eugene]They certainly do exist. They are nothing like us. They are so much more advanced than us (millions of years more advanced) that it would be very hard for us simply to comprehend what they are. The best mental picture of such an alien is probably that of an omniscient and omnipresent Christian God. (or, far more likely, that of a Buddha – an intelligent entity that realizes the irrelevance of its own existence, completely withdraws from interaction with the world, and enters Nirvana.)
[/quote]
Buddha may have already outed himself as an alien 2500 years ago when he mentioned he was just one of many Buddhas that have visited this world and that there will be other future Buddhas to come. He also mentioned that there are infinite number of Buddhas and there are infinite numbers of “worlds” where they come from.
of course, the major teaching of Buddha is that he is not a supernatural being, but just a sentient being that reached Buddhahood through a long journey that ended in his enlightenment. meaning that the infinite number of Buddhas he spoke of in other worlds also reached their Buddhahood through their own journeys.
so an updated version of the Buddhist sutras could simply be: an ET from another world came to this earth in human form, talked of infinite number of other ETs from infinite number of other planets across the universe, and reported there will be other ETs that will continue to visit. And the central point of his teaching is that we can all reach the level of these other ETs through practice of loving kindness until we develop infinite wisdom and compassion.
April 27, 2010 @ 7:11 AM
Wow, 10 of 12 people believe
Wow, 10 of 12 people believe in it so far…!!
I’m assuming that people are including their God in extraterrestrial…
April 27, 2010 @ 8:01 AM
I don’t like the wording of
I don’t like the wording of the question. Believe has a wishful connotation. I do want them to exist. however, I voted no, but I don’t discount the possibility. Conversely, just the probability of the optimum conditions for life sparking on our little blue planet is astronomical to a miraculous extent. So, for it to happen on another planet would make it just that much more improbable.
April 28, 2010 @ 5:46 PM
Arraya wrote:…just the
[quote=Arraya]…just the probability of the optimum conditions for life sparking on our little blue planet is astronomical to a miraculous extent. So, for it to happen on another planet would make it just that much more improbable.[/quote]
How so? What is that probability when measured against not just one life form, but all life forms, and the vast complexity of the planet. It’s not just one probability, so it follows the more there are, the less improbable anyone of them becomes. There is nothing miraculous about it. Of a scale and complexity that it is beyond our comprehension is not in doubt, but only human arrogance denies us the freedom to accept that. That’s why we have a God, and why he is made in our image, or rather we in his.
Perhaps the question should be, would we know an alien if we saw one? Can you imagine how an insect conceptualizes us? It’s very limited capacity doesn’t allow it that luxury (or horror). Self awareness has no special attachments, other than in degrees of being self aware. Being relatively, highly self-aware does not mean being aware of everything, however. It is evolutionary, but probably absolute in its limits, or boundaries of comprehension. For that reason, we should never assume we can apply what we know with any confidence, to what might be. So perhaps alien existence can best be defined as improbably probable.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:44 AM
Okay, found the news clip
Okay, found the news clip (Fox 6) of the San Diego sighting on New Year’s Eve 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAox0pcZZxo
Here, they discuss UFO sightings on Larry King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swKClXBsNWA&feature=related
April 29, 2010 @ 8:43 PM
I was hoping Enorah could
I was hoping Enorah could tell me whether the site describing various celestial beings was full of shite or not.
April 29, 2010 @ 9:09 PM
I don’t see how life could
I don’t see how life could originate around M45 (the so-called Pleadians).
M45 is primarily younger very hot, very large stars and also brown dwarfs. Not really the stuff of life.
April 30, 2010 @ 12:59 PM
paramount wrote:I don’t see
[quote=paramount]I don’t see how life could originate around M45 (the so-called Pleadians).
M45 is primarily younger very hot, very large stars and also brown dwarfs. Not really the stuff of life.[/quote]
In the third dimension it is
right now in the third dimension it is
It was not third dimensional Pleiadians that seeded this planet
April 30, 2010 @ 1:19 PM
Always interesting stuff.
Always interesting stuff. Should have taken Enorah for spirits (the beverage kind) when she was in Encinitas…
April 30, 2010 @ 2:17 PM
“Believe in” has always been
“Believe in” has always been a bad way of putting it IMHO.
Given the size of the universe my wager is “yes”
April 30, 2010 @ 12:58 PM
CardiffBaseball wrote:I was
[quote=CardiffBaseball]I was hoping Enorah could tell me whether the site describing various celestial beings was full of shite or not.[/quote]
I’ll look at it and get back to you
April 27, 2010 @ 8:57 AM
Possible, but not proven.
Possible, but not proven.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:09 AM
If you’ve ever watched the
If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:52 AM
Certainly the mathematics of
Certainly the mathematics of the universe point to life existing elsewhere as meadandale states above. See Sagan’s explanation of the Drake Equation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dilKJ6uLCc8&feature=related. Whether or not they are “intelligent” is another question. Given that it has taken billions of years of evolution of this planet, and we’ve only now in the past handful of decades (a tiny fraction of our planet’s existence) been able to communicate and travel into space, how many billions of years would an alien planet need to exist and thrive before they would have the technology to come here?
For aliens to visit us they’d need to be able to travel at the speed of light or have found some way to navigate still-theoretical wormholes. The distances are just too vast.
“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
– Stephen Hawking
Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs and visiting aliens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68&NR=1
April 27, 2010 @ 9:56 AM
afx114 wrote:Given that it
[quote=afx114]Given that it has taken billions of years of evolution of this planet, and we’ve only now in the past handful of decades (a tiny fraction of our planet’s existence) been able to communicate and travel into space, how many billions of years would an alien planet need to exist and thrive before they would have the technology to come here?[/quote]
Most of that evolution has taken place in the last 500 million years…and realistically it would have happened much sooner if it weren’t for the many extinction events that kicked the biosphere back to square one.
April 27, 2010 @ 10:05 AM
meadandale wrote:Most of that
[quote=meadandale]Most of that evolution has taken place in the last 500 million years…and realistically it would have happened much sooner if it weren’t for the many extinction events that kicked the biosphere back to square one.[/quote]
Correct. But extinction events aren’t unique to our planet. Alien planets would be susceptible to similar extinction events.
We also must not discount the possibility of civilizations wiping themselves out. We haven’t done so yet, but we’ve come close a few times. The jury’s still out on whether or not we still will.
April 27, 2010 @ 11:02 AM
meadandale wrote:If you’ve
[quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.
April 27, 2010 @ 11:04 AM
Russell wrote:meadandale
[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.[/quote]
The poll question wasn’t “Is there extra-terrestrial life?”. It was “Do you BELIEVE in extra-terrestrial life?”. My answer, yes, is consistent with the comments that I posted.
April 27, 2010 @ 11:40 AM
meadandale wrote:Russell
[quote=meadandale][quote=Russell][quote=meadandale]If you’ve ever watched the original episode of How The Earth Was Made it chronicles how life has boomed, been wiped out and boomed again at least 3 times in the last 4.5 billion years on earth. In almost every case, pretty much everything except very primitive lifeforms were wiped out only to rise again.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurrasic Park: “Life finds a way”.
There are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. To think that earth is the only place where life exists in our 13+ billion year old universe is pretty naive.
There is most certainly life elsewhere in the universe and the chances of there being advanced life (intelligent, self aware beings) is pretty high.
The universe is a pretty big place. Just because none of these other lifeforms have been confirmed to have visited earth doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.[/quote]
So based on your logic, you voted “not sure”? What about your post is not speculative? There has not been one case of “evidence” examined that doesn’t a specualtive element. It is a question of probability not certainty.[/quote]
The poll question wasn’t “Is there extra-terrestrial life?”. It was “Do you BELIEVE in extra-terrestrial life?”. My answer, yes, is consistent with the comments that I posted.[/quote]
I shouldn’t have singled you out,my bad.I don’t get what there is to “believe in” and especially offer “spurious proofs” for, if you haven’t in your mind confirmed or denied it? Maybe it a matter of looking at the semantics differenly but I don’t even see why any of these explanations give reason to “believe”(or deny) anything.
April 27, 2010 @ 1:02 PM
I’m with meadandale.
If you
I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.
April 27, 2010 @ 1:25 PM
Nothing worng with scientific
Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?
April 27, 2010 @ 1:49 PM
Russell wrote:Nothing worng
[quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?
April 27, 2010 @ 2:10 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?[/quote]
LOL. The phone is ringing of the hooks since I made that post. NWO “think tanks” calling.
April 27, 2010 @ 2:13 PM
Anyone have any answers for
Anyone have any answers for what happened in Chicago in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting
Also, a few years back, there were some UFO sightings here in San Diego, and they had footage from various sources. This was on our local news one day, and then…nothing.
There have been plenty of UFO sightings with reports coming in from a wide variety of very credible sources and across large geographic regions (at the same time/day). For some reason, you see it on the news for only one newscast, and then…nothing. The fact that we don’t get to see the follow-up doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
Just thowing it out there to stir things up… 😉
April 27, 2010 @ 2:32 PM
CA renter wrote:Anyone have
[quote=CA renter]Anyone have any answers for what happened in Chicago in 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting
Also, a few years back, there were some UFO sightings here in San Diego, and they had footage from various sources. This was on our local news one day, and then…nothing.
There have been plenty of UFO sightings with reports coming in from a wide variety of very credible sources and across large geographic regions (at the same time/day). For some reason, you see it on the news for only one newscast, and then…nothing. The fact that we don’t get to see the follow-up doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
Just thowing it out there to stir things up… ;)[/quote]
CAR: My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and Korea. One of his squadron mates reported “strange lights” in “non-ballistic motion” off of Pt. Mugu around the end of WWII. These so-called “foo fighters” were reported during WWII and even into the Korean War, until Navy, Marine and USAF pilots were told it was a “career killer” to officially report UFO sightings.
My uncle told me he knew of dozens of pilots, including jet pilots flying at extremely high altitudes that had seen UFOs and the majority of their sightings were consistent in terms of description, etc, but the military did not want these officially reported.
These are not guys given to conspiracy theories, but are highly trained individuals, and often combat trained (i.e. not prone to hysterics or panic). Makes you wonder.
April 27, 2010 @ 2:38 PM
..
I always thought this was
[img_assist|nid=13204|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=546|height=500]
I always thought this was a cool story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
The Battle of Los Angeles is the name given by contemporary news agencies to a sighting of one or more unidentified flying objects which took place from late 24 February to early 25 February 1942 in which eyewitness reports of an unknown object or objects over Los Angeles, California, triggered a massive anti-aircraft artillery barrage.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:15 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
CAR: My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and Korea. One of his squadron mates reported “strange lights” in “non-ballistic motion” off of Pt. Mugu around the end of WWII. These so-called “foo fighters” were reported during WWII and even into the Korean War, until Navy, Marine and USAF pilots were told it was a “career killer” to officially report UFO sightings.
My uncle told me he knew of dozens of pilots, including jet pilots flying at extremely high altitudes that had seen UFOs and the majority of their sightings were consistent in terms of description, etc, but the military did not want these officially reported.
These are not guys given to conspiracy theories, but are highly trained individuals, and often combat trained (i.e. not prone to hysterics or panic). Makes you wonder.[/quote]
Yes, my DH has a friend who’s a commercial pilot and he said that most pilots who’ve spent a significant time flying have seen things that they couldn’t explain. He said he absolutely believed in UFOs, and that most other pilots did, too. To hear your story, too, makes it even more interesting.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
CA R, I just texted a friend
CA R, I just texted a friend who flies for one of the majors. He said he’s hasn’t seen anything weird in the last 20 years he’s been flying.
But he does believe in Aliens.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:06 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA R, I just
[quote=briansd1]CA R, I just texted a friend who flies for one of the majors. He said he’s hasn’t seen anything weird in the last 20 years he’s been flying.
But he does believe in Aliens.[/quote]
See if he’ll tell you what the general consensus is among pilots. I’m seriously interested in hearing his/her take on it (assuming he’s even talked with others about the subject, and assuming anyone’s willing to admit to such things publicly).
We only have one datapoint as far as commercial pilots go, but would like to hear what others have to say about the topic, in general.
April 27, 2010 @ 4:17 PM
CA R, he has no idea what
CA R, he has no idea what other pilots think.
I used to read science fiction (forgot the titles) At times, there would be sex between humans and Aliens (for example an Alien queen captures a human pilot). There were never any offsprings.
But that would be an interesting way for humans to evolve more rapidly.
April 27, 2010 @ 5:14 PM
deleted
deleted
April 28, 2010 @ 12:45 PM
CA renter wrote:
See if he’ll
[quote=CA renter]
See if he’ll tell you what the general consensus is among pilots. I’m seriously interested in hearing his/her take on it (assuming he’s even talked with others about the subject, and assuming anyone’s willing to admit to such things publicly). [/quote]
Pilots can’t talk about “weird” stuff openly because people could then label them as unfit to fly. That’s why few pilots, if any, would seek psychological or psychiatric help.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:29 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Russell]Nothing worng with scientific inquiry.Widespread “belief” in flights of fancy is scary. What’s going to happen next, progandized global consolidation of world religions and huddled masses through fantasies about potentially mean extra-terrestrials…or else?[/quote]
Rustico: Are you off your meds again?[/quote]
My comment was for fun, but looking at recent history say the last 10,000 years and the number of believers today , would you say the script and such an indoctrination of it(perhaps bloody), is hard to imagine?
April 27, 2010 @ 1:48 PM
briansd1 wrote:I’m with
[quote=briansd1]I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.[/quote]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
Whoops. I cannot wait to hear you talk your way out of this one!
April 27, 2010 @ 2:35 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance of the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.
April 27, 2010 @ 2:36 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from
[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.[/quote]
Brian: Well, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, its the same thing. See Einstein’s remark about knowing God’s mind. Then read Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc. These are some of the most highly trained minds in the world and utterly scientific. Interestingly, many of them are also very spiritual (NOT religious).
Refer to our earlier discussion about how Faith and Reason are mutually supportive. I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science.
Better yet, try getting into a real serious discussion about quantum mechanics and temporal relastics without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding His/Her/Its way into the discussion.
April 28, 2010 @ 3:44 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Uh, dude? Read what you wrote above. Teleologically speaking, you’ve just made the case for your having “faith”, i.e. belief without absolute proof.
[/quote]
haha.. I understand what you’re getting at. 😉
I think that the preponderance the evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.
The Christian God type faith is another thing.[/quote]
Brian: Well, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, its the same thing. See Einstein’s remark about knowing God’s mind. Then read Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc. These are some of the most highly trained minds in the world and utterly scientific. Interestingly, many of them are also very spiritual (NOT religious).
Refer to our earlier discussion about how Faith and Reason are mutually supportive. I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science.
Better yet, try getting into a real serious discussion about quantum mechanics and temporal relastics without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding His/Her/Its way into the discussion.[/quote]
What Brian said was that the Christian God type faith thing is different from “the preponderance the
evidence that is that there are life forms out there somewhere in the universe.”
Your response was to say that it is the same thing, and suggested he read what Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Planck, etc.
I disagree strongly with your statement that it’s the same thing. To rebut your points one by one:
I haven’t seen anything in the works of Einstein, etc. that differs from what Brian said. If you’ve seen
something that does, feel free to show me.
Then you say that many of them are “very spiritual (NOT religious).” This seems to me to be irrelevant. Of course, there
are several definitions of “spritual,” most of them quite nebulous. There are, however, plenty of definitions of spiritual
that don’t include belief in the Christian god or any similar god. And in any case, just because those men had great scientific minds, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t subject to wishful thinking in the form of faith. In fact, understanding the enormity and coldness of the universe to a greater degree than most people would seem to me to make them more likely to need something to give them a meaning to their life. Unfortunately, needing it and it being true are unrelated in this case.
You say “I think you’ll find the notion of God at the intersection of spirituality and science,” but don’t offer any reasoning for this statement, except to refer
to a previous discussion. I assume this is the one to which you were referring:
“When I was in high school (Catholic), I received an assignment in Comparative Religions to study Sufism and the poems of Rumi.
To say that the assignment was enlightening was to damn it with faint praise. It was incredible and I realized that the path to God and spirituality
does not know one denomination or religion or path. Enlightenment comes
from acceptance that true knowledge, regardless of source, is pure and to embrace that.
To me, Faith and Reason do support each other. They are the “two wings of enlightenment” and BOTH are necessary.”
So your study of Comparative Religions, Sufism, and the poems of Rumi enlightened you. Enlighten us. What did you find that convinced you that
faith and reason support each other? And that they are both necessary? (And what does that have to do with Brian’s statement about “the Christian God type faith thing?”)
While we’re on the subject of that post, you did mention that you don’t take the bible literally. But not taking it literally isn’t the same as not believing parts of it.
I’d be interested to hear how you reconcile, “I realized that the path to God and spirituality
does not know one denomination or religion or path.” with “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
As far as quantum mechanics and temporal relastics: “Relastics” is a word I’ve never heard and can’t find in my dictionary. What does that mean?
You imply that a serious discussion about quantum mechanics will be difficult without God/Supreme Being/Force/Great Spirit/Etc finding its way into the disscussion. “Force” is nothing like the Christian god. If I catch your meaning of “force” correctly, which I’m not sure I do. My point being that when you don’t fully understand something,
it’s more comforting to let your personal god find its way into the discussion than having a cold “force” find its way in there, but that doesn’t make it more likely
that your personal god exists than some cold “force.” And since we don’t understand all there is to know
about the universe, at some point we’re going to have to either use the preponderence of evidence to deduce what’s most likely, or have faith in something, or give up. Having faith doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would you have “faith” in something if the evidence points elsewhere?
Having faith in something as outrageously ridiculous as the Christian god (or any similar god) makes even less sense to me.
April 28, 2010 @ 4:09 PM
If you want to learn about
If you want to learn about the various types of alien life forms out there (at least those occupying a physical body) it’s all documented here and you can thank me later. It’s on the web it must true.
http://aliens.monstrous.com/index.htm
As you do your research you’ll see that we share many common traits with Pleadians, Nordics etc.. You simply need to hover over Species and click on the various humans that exist.
Greys apparently come from Zeta Reticuli star system. We apparently are most closely related to the Pleadians, which Enorah claims to be from. Apparently they helped colonize earth, and left behind Immanuel.
Enorah can you compare and contrast the humanoids with the Greys, Reptilians etc?
Channeling my inner George Nouri/Art Bell…
April 28, 2010 @ 4:18 PM
I think this guy had it right
I think this guy had it right about UFOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkck99hyYWk
April 27, 2010 @ 2:59 PM
Dupe.
Dupe.
April 27, 2010 @ 3:08 PM
“I do not feel obliged to
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” — Galileo Galilei
April 27, 2010 @ 3:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:I’m with
[quote=briansd1]I’m with meadandale.
If you waited for absolute proof to believe in anything, then you’d be very limited.[/quote]
The poll is a little limiting. Such things are best expressed in terms of probability. Maybe the poll should read:
0% chance of,
1-5% chance of,
5-10% chance of,
.
.
.
95-99% chance of
100% chance of.
That way, you don’t have to use terms like “believe” or “faith” at all, unless you go for 0% or 100%.
April 27, 2010 @ 9:04 AM
Other than Ramans and
Other than Ramans and Europe’s oceanic creatures?
April 27, 2010 @ 2:36 PM
Just logged in for the first
Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.
April 28, 2010 @ 8:53 AM
Enorah wrote:Just logged in
[quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:30 AM
partypup wrote:Enorah
[quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.[/quote]
Sounds to me like there would likely be sterility problems in this scenario. Also our DNA should vary much more from other primates as a result. Maybe natural selection is gradually stripping out the “extraterrestrial ancestral” component and we will soon be dragging our knuckles again?
April 28, 2010 @ 12:15 PM
Russell wrote:partypup
[quote=Russell][quote=partypup][quote=Enorah]Just logged in for the first time in forever. What are defining as extraterrestrial? I speak with non-earthling beings all of the time, some angelic, some spirit guide, some are those who have passed, some are Pleiadian, some are Antarian, all I would consider to be extraterrestrial. ET simply means life that does not originate from Earth. So according to that definition coupled with my belief system about how life on this plant began, we are all et’s.[/quote]
I concur. I am of the growing opinion that a portion of DNA in homo sapiens contains genetic material not found anywhere else on this planet, and that humanity is the product of a hybrid experiment between the indigenous population of earth (whatever/whoever that was at the time) and our extraterrestrial ancestors. I also think there is a strong probability that non-terrestrial humanoids bear more than a passing resemblance to what we would consider to be “human”. I believe these people walk and live among us.
And no, I am not off my meds.[/quote]
Sounds to me like there would likely be sterility problems in this scenario. Also our DNA should vary much more from other primates as a result. Maybe natural selection is gradually stripping out the “extraterrestrial ancestral” component and we will soon be dragging our knuckles again?[/quote]
Not sure about the sterility possibility, but it only takes a small tweak in DNA to have a major impact on any organism. 96% of our DNA mimics chimpanzees, and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Although at the rate we are presently “evolving”, your prediction of knuckle-dragging at some point in the future may not be too far off the mark 😉
April 28, 2010 @ 12:18 PM
partypup wrote: and look what
[quote=partypup] and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
[/quote]
Not that much in my estimation.
April 28, 2010 @ 12:42 PM
Arraya wrote:partypup wrote:
[quote=Arraya][quote=partypup] and look what a huge difference that remaining 4% makes!
[/quote]
Not that much in my estimation.[/quote]
hahah, Arraya and partypup, I can see both your points of view.
April 28, 2010 @ 12:43 PM
Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like
Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like Humans
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News:
“March 26, 2009 — Chimpanzees share many of our genes, but dogs have lived with us for so long and undergone so much domestication that they are now serving as a model for understanding human social behavior, according to a new paper.”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/26/dog-human-behavior.html
April 28, 2010 @ 12:58 PM
Aecetia wrote:Dogs (Not
[quote=Aecetia]Dogs (Not Chimps) Most Like Humans
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News:
“March 26, 2009 — Chimpanzees share many of our genes, but dogs have lived with us for so long and undergone so much domestication that they are now serving as a model for understanding human social behavior, according to a new paper.”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/26/dog-human-behavior.html%5B/quote%5D
Desmond Morris wrote in “Naked Ape”, that when our tribe left the trees and went to the plains we picked up many behavioral traits of dogs. It goes to show how impacted we are by our surrounding environment we are.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:33 AM
Why do people assume that
Why do people assume that aliens look like us? Or that they even have a face? The majority of species on our own planet don’t even have a face.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
afx114 wrote:Why do people
[quote=afx114]Why do people assume that aliens look like us? Or that they even have a face? The majority of species on our own planet don’t even have a face.[/quote]
The thought process could be related to the one that was used to have God create us in His own image.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
Yes, I love Ojai
Yes, we have
Yes, I love Ojai
Yes, we have an organic garden taking up our front yard.
Nice to connect with you all 🙂
April 28, 2010 @ 10:14 AM
“Sometimes I think the surest
“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Calvin and Hobbes.
I lived down the street from John Lear growing up. John Lear is the son of Willian “Bill” Lear builder of the Lear Jet. His son John was a highly dicspline military type guy and a one time held the Worlds Record for the most flying time. He was nuts over the subject and ruined his career on his outspokeness about UFOs. You can catch him on Youtube.
He is an incredible individual but when he is talking about UFOs he just comes over like a nut case. If you knew the other side of this man would you know that he truely believes in what he says and really does not crave the attention.
CE
April 27, 2010 @ 3:10 PM
If you are asking if there
If you are asking if there are those among us that are from a different planet.. I would have to say… YES!
😛
CE
April 27, 2010 @ 4:33 PM
What evidence is necessary to
What evidence is necessary to prove the existence of ‘extraterrestrial life forms’?
A lot of discussion on this board implies that life forms are carbon based. What about the possibility of ‘dark matter based lifeforms’.
Basically what I’m saying is, relative to the infinite possibilities in existence in the universe, we don’t know squat.
The very strategies we employ in searching for ET life are incredibly presumptuous.Is EM radiation the best form of intergalactic communication? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, we don’t have the technology to develop subspace communication detection devices.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:12 PM
what the heck
I show up here
what the heck
I show up here for the first time in many moons, claim my Extraterrestrial origins and no one even says hi to me
*off to cry on the mothership*
April 27, 2010 @ 8:20 PM
Thanks for starting this
Thanks for starting this thread Brian…
Enorah were you the one claiming to be from the vicinity of M45?
I seem to recall someone mentioning that in the past.
I believe it was the person who moved to Ojai if I recall correctly.
To me, the answer is 100% yes, there is life elsewhere and I have no doubts about that.
April 27, 2010 @ 8:23 PM
I did move to Ojai
The
I did move to Ojai
The Pleiades among other places
yup
April 28, 2010 @ 12:24 AM
Enorah wrote:I did move to
[quote=Enorah]I did move to Ojai
The Pleiades among other places
yup[/quote]
Hi Enorah! 🙂
Are you still enjoying Ojai? Like it better than down here?
April 28, 2010 @ 12:45 AM
Hey Enorah! How is paradise?
Hey Enorah! How is paradise? Are you growing an organic garden? You have to check in more often.