The Great Silence

[Bradski]

There is no “of course”. You haven’t provide any evidence yet. You presumed.

Let’s say that there is a very small chance indeed. An infinitesimally small chance that in the observable universe there is intelligent life.

Now consider that there are an infinite number of ‘observable universes’. That infinitesimally small chance becomes a certainty.

 

[openmind77]

There is no “of course”. You haven’t provide any evidence yet. You presumed.

You sound like an atheist asking me for the proof of the existence of God.

The fact is that when you count the number of stars and planets, probability of the existence of other planets with intelligent inhabitants in the Universe is much higher. The proof is really in statistics and probability - there is actually nothing that special about our planet.

 

[mikekle]

1. If extra-terrestrial beings with human-like souls exist in the vast universe, would we be obliged to visit or communicate with them as missionaries for Christ?

Maybe this is why the Vatican seems to take such a strong interest in this topic? G. Cosmangalo (spelling?) and Balducci especially.

I believe the Vatican (and our leaders) know much more about this than they admit publicly though, there is an FBI document from 1947, declassified in 2011, and currently on the FBI website that gives a detailed description of what these things are, the most important thing it mentions is they are not from a world/ planet, in they way we would use the word… they come from more esoteric origins (loakas/ Talas)

** I can give you the link to this document or go to the official FBI site yourself

Personally, I believe God created everything, everywhere, here on earth and all the other places life is present, and when the bible tells us it is our responsibility to spread his word, well, if we have the means to do so, then yes, we would be required.

 

[ericc]

Let’s say that there is a very small chance indeed. An infinitesimally small chance that in the observable universe there is intelligent life.

Now consider that there are an infinite number of ‘observable universes’. That infinitesimally small chance becomes a certainty.

Science have not provided the evidence that chance can cause life to appear from lifeless elements, regardless of the numbers thrown around. When a mechanism has been identified, then we can meaningfully talk about the probability of it happening in this universe that is 13.5 billion years old.

 

[ericc]

You sound like an atheist asking me for the proof of the existence of God.

The fact is that when you count the number of stars and planets, probability of the existence of other planets with intelligent inhabitants in the Universe is much higher. The proof is really in statistics and probability - there is actually nothing that special about our planet.

Actually not. I am just asking you to provide evidence of your claim which you have confidently tagged it with the “of course”. I can expect that to be forthcoming?

 

[ericc]

The fact is that when you count the number of stars and planets, probability of the existence of other planets with intelligent inhabitants in the Universe is much higher. The proof is really in statistics and probability - there is actually nothing that special about our planet.

I can confidently tell you as a fact you have 1 data point only. In statistics, 1 data point does not establish trend. Our planet is special being that 1 data point. I can be corrected of course provided you give evidence to the contrary.

And since you are on the subject of probability, perhaps you would like to start with some prelim numbers, so as to establish the foundation of your calculations.

 

[openmind77]

I can confidently tell you as a fact you have 1 data point only. In statistics, 1 data point does not establish trend. Our planet is special being that 1 data point. I can be corrected of course provided you give evidence to the contrary.

And since you are on the subject of probability, perhaps you would like to start with some prelim numbers, so as to establish the foundation of your calculations.

I am glad you are so confident.

Here are some estimates from slightly more qualified people: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation .

Actually I think these are all underestimates because they are talking about finding living beings just like us, I think the chances of other forms of inteligent life (life forms totally different from that on earth) is actually much higher.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It rarely occurs to theorists of extra-terrestrial life that there may be millions of planets throughout the universe teeming with all kinds of life, but that only one planet sustains creatures capable of imagining that possibility. It may well be that the great silence exists not only because the planets are so far apart, but because we are the only civilization capable of imagining others and probing the heavens to find out they are not there.

 

[mikekle]

Here is proof positive they have already found details about an extraterrestrial race…Im telling you guys, the question is not whether or not they exist, its how many are currently visiting earth, and what their motives are. Despite what you would think, the Govt takes this VERY VERY serious.

This is an official US Government document, declassified in 2011.

thecontroversialfiles.net/2015/06/declassified-fbi-document-earth-visited.html

What I find curious, if they knew this much about them back then, Lord only knows what they are aware of today.

 

[ericc]

I am glad you are so confident.

Because there is empirical evidence. Do you have yours?

Here are some estimates from slightly more qualified people: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation .

Actually I think these are all underestimates because they are talking about finding living beings just like us, I think the chances of other forms of inteligent life (life forms totally different from that on earth) is actually much higher.

Slot in your numbers, calculate the range of possible answers, compared that against the actual observed and we will know the predictive value of the equation. Actually these numbers are plucked from the sky. Anything multiplied by non-life is non-life.

But you seem to have miss the point entirely. From the article you cited:

*The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations,[3][better source needed] but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at a meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). * You misapplied something not meant for it.

Science requires one to observe and measure and the proof of the equation is its predictive value of the equation. At some point, the theorizing ought to stop and evidence obtained. Otherwise any one’s prediction is as good as the other. You see, when evidence is asked for, typically more theories, hypotheses,formulas and calculations are re-offered. You don’t need more faith that equations can create intelligent life. You need evidence, at least for a materialist.

 

[openmind77]

…Science requires one to observe and measure and the proof of the equation is its predictive value of the equation. At some point, the theorizing ought to stop and evidence obtained. …

Pretty much what atheists say about the existence of God.

But as long as the theory is reasonable, I don’t need proof of either.

 

[ericc]

Pretty much what atheists say about the existence of God.

But as long as the theory is reasonable, I don’t need proof of either.

I think you are on the wrong topic. Or an attempt on fallacious reasoning. Or in a serious state of denial.

First, we are on the topic of ET. Secondly, a claim was made on the certainty of intelligent worlds elsewhere. A request for the evidence was made and none came. And as predicted, other pronouncements followed other than the evidence.

This is not about atheism or God either. This is about making a claim and substantiating the claim. If the claim can’t be substantiated, the correct thing is to withdraw the claim. Rather than subject other forumers the acrobatics of denial. Ego is not a good thing to defend.

Any theory can be reasonable. The question is why it is professed as factual when it is not. A theory may be reasonable but when not supported by facts or data loses credibility very soon.

Notwithstanding that, you are free to promote or accept any theories you think are reasonable. But be prepared to defend it when asked if you were to tout it as fact. The simple fact is that what you claim is not fact, just wishful thinking.

 

[mikekle]

I think you are on the wrong topic. Or an attempt on fallacious reasoning. Or in a serious state of denial.

First, we are on the topic of ET. Secondly, a claim was made on the certainty of intelligent worlds elsewhere. A request for the evidence was made and none came. And as predicted, other pronouncements followed other than the evidence.

This is not about atheism or God either. This is about making a claim and substantiating the claim. If the claim can’t be substantiated, the correct thing is to withdraw the claim. Rather than subject other forumers the acrobatics of denial. Ego is not a good thing to defend.

Any theory can be reasonable. The question is why it is professed as factual when it is not. A theory may be reasonable but when not supported by facts or data loses credibility very soon.

Notwithstanding that, you are free to promote or accept any theories you think are reasonable. But be prepared to defend it when asked if you were to tout it as fact. The simple fact is that what you claim is not fact, just wishful thinking.

I provided you with proof of not only the existence, but their presence on earth for many years in my last post. Its a legitimate Govt document giving very brief intro on their details…what more could you want?

This document was part of 1000 other Govt documents released to the public after L. Rockefeller petitioned Hillary Clinton on the subject, was accomplished thru FOIA.

 

[ericc]

I provided you with proof of not only the existence, but their presence on earth for many years in my last post. Its a legitimate Govt document giving very brief intro on their details…what more could you want?

This document was part of 1000 other Govt documents released to the public after L. Rockefeller petitioned Hillary Clinton on the subject, was accomplished thru FOIA.

Oh please! I don’t accept sensational tabloid stuff as serious news! If UFOs are real , where are the congressional hearings, the uproar, the international stampede? Or is it more conspiracy theories?

I am surprised that your source of information is from a website that specialises in controversies. The shock value is an objective to be sought. And the contributor of the article, Ivan Petricevic, Ancient-Code, also specializes in sensationalizing articles. The recent ones being:

Unequivocal evidence of Alien structures on Mars
NASA: There Is A Giant Square Structure Hidden Under The Moon
Shemsu Hor, the Celestial architects of the Great Sphinx, an 800,000 year old monument

Now if these are properly credentialed experts, I may want to invest in some time in hearing what they have to say. But what credentials do they have? Do you know?

To be fair, I downloaded the UFO report and tried to read it. The first 13 pages were too painful to read due to the background color. The shock pages start on pg 22 where the writer claims a number of ET stuff.

Let me stop right there. Someone claims something, FBI documented it, does it mean that it is real? How did you ascertain that it is real? No evidence of ET was submitted.
The writer claim these:

1. Part of the disks carry crews, others are under remote control
2. Their mission is peaceful. The visitors contemplate settling on this plane
3. These visitors are human-like but much larger in size
4. They are not excarnate Earth people, but come from their own world
5. They do NOT come from a planet as we use the word, but from an etheric planet which interpenetrates with our own and is not perceptible to us
6. The bodies of the visitors, and the craft, automatically materialize on entering the vibratory rate of our dense matter
7. The disks posses a type of radiant energy, or a ray, which will easily disintegrate any attacking ship. They reenter the etheric at will, and so simply disappear from our vision, without trace
8. The region from which they come is not the “astral plane”, but corresponds to the Lokas or Talas. Students of esoteric matters will understand these terms.
9. They probably can not be reached by radio, but probably can be by radar. if a signal system can be devised for that (apparatus)

Since you claim you have given me proof, I want to ask you this: have you ascertained that any of the above 9 items are true? Yes or no?

So you have esoteric folks getting into UFO stuff, and most likely unbalanced and you are open to accept these as “proof”?

To dash your enthusiasm, on pg 61 the report says "high school students were present and were having quite a laugh about the excitement caused by the finding of the disc…he received a definite impression that these young students either had themselves or knew of someone who had been working fro the past two weeks making this “flying disc”

On pg 65 of the report “the flying disc burst into flames when it landed. Further, that it had been the cause of a fire in some woods…The fire chief at Burbank had called the resident agent at Burbank and told him he would hold the disc for him.”

“…the object was an aluminum disc about 2’ in diameter weighing about ten pounds, painted with alumimum paint and having some sort of a radio tube in the center of the disc”

Gee, these ETs are really tiny…And if government departments need to document the statements of all crackpots, it is no wonder where tax payers money goes to.

Please give me something solid to work with, not Erich von Daniken stuff. Been there, done that. You claim you gave me proof of existence. How did you establish that proof?

 

[openmind77]

I think you are on the wrong topic. Or an attempt on fallacious reasoning. Or in a serious state of denial.

First, we are on the topic of ET. Secondly, a claim was made on the certainty of intelligent worlds elsewhere. A request for the evidence was made and none came. And as predicted, other pronouncements followed other than the evidence.

This is not about atheism or God either. This is about making a claim and substantiating the claim. If the claim can’t be substantiated, the correct thing is to withdraw the claim. Rather than subject other forumers the acrobatics of denial. Ego is not a good thing to defend.

Any theory can be reasonable. The question is why it is professed as factual when it is not. A theory may be reasonable but when not supported by facts or data loses credibility very soon.

Notwithstanding that, you are free to promote or accept any theories you think are reasonable. But be prepared to defend it when asked if you were to tout it as fact. The simple fact is that what you claim is not fact, just wishful thinking.

You are talking exactly like an atheist - demanding proof from everyone. The atheists also say that we make all these claims about the existence of God, so we should provide them scientific proof.

Nobody owes these atheists any proofs - if they choose not to believe, it is their problem. We should not care what the atheists believe and what they don’t. The same goes for you too.

 

[ericc]

You are talking exactly like an atheist - demanding proof from everyone. The atheists also say that we make all these claims about the existence of God, so we should provide them scientific proof.

Nobody owes these atheists any proofs - if they choose not to believe, it is their problem. We should not care what the atheists believe and what they don’t. The same goes for you too.

I am ONLY asking you to justify your claims. And since you won’t, then the conclusion is clear. You want to make claims without the need to defend them.

Please don’t tarnish my faith. I am trying to be on good standing with the Lord and I have no wish to be lumped together with atheists. I have no idea that atheists demand proof from everyone. It is good that people try to rationalize their belief or the belief of others. The main problem is that evidence is sometimes not to their liking or insufficient for them. But that is ok. It is a good exchange of views and I respect their stance to their beliefs.

However, you don’t even attempt to justify your claim and resort to tagging me with atheist label in your response. (As if that is going to sway me and make me forget about my demand for evidence from you). That is not cool. Is that all you are capable of in terms of a response?

 

[mikekle]

Oh please! I don’t accept sensational tabloid stuff as serious news! If UFOs are real , where are the congressional hearings, the uproar, the international stampede? Or is it more conspiracy theories?

I am surprised that your source of information is from a website that specialises in controversies. The shock value is an objective to be sought. And the contributor of the article, Ivan Petricevic, Ancient-Code, also specializes in sensationalizing articles. The recent ones being:

Unequivocal evidence of Alien structures on Mars
NASA: There Is A Giant Square Structure Hidden Under The Moon
Shemsu Hor, the Celestial architects of the Great Sphinx, an 800,000 year old monument

Now if these are properly credentialed experts, I may want to invest in some time in hearing what they have to say. But what credentials do they have? Do you know?

To be fair, I downloaded the UFO report and tried to read it. The first 13 pages were too painful to read due to the background color. The shock pages start on pg 22 where the writer claims a number of ET stuff.

Let me stop right there. Someone claims something, FBI documented it, does it mean that it is real? How did you ascertain that it is real? No evidence of ET was submitted.
The writer claim these:

1. Part of the disks carry crews, others are under remote control
2. Their mission is peaceful. The visitors contemplate settling on this plane
3. These visitors are human-like but much larger in size
4. They are not excarnate Earth people, but come from their own world
5. They do NOT come from a planet as we use the word, but from an etheric planet which interpenetrates with our own and is not perceptible to us
6. The bodies of the visitors, and the craft, automatically materialize on entering the vibratory rate of our dense matter
7. The disks posses a type of radiant energy, or a ray, which will easily disintegrate any attacking ship. They reenter the etheric at will, and so simply disappear from our vision, without trace
8. The region from which they come is not the “astral plane”, but corresponds to the Lokas or Talas. Students of esoteric matters will understand these terms.
9. They probably can not be reached by radio, but probably can be by radar. if a signal system can be devised for that (apparatus)

Since you claim you have given me proof, I want to ask you this: have you ascertained that any of the above 9 items are true? Yes or no?

So you have esoteric folks getting into UFO stuff, and most likely unbalanced and you are open to accept these as “proof”?

To dash your enthusiasm, on pg 61 the report says "high school students were present and were having quite a laugh about the excitement caused by the finding of the disc…he received a definite impression that these young students either had themselves or knew of someone who had been working fro the past two weeks making this “flying disc”

On pg 65 of the report “the flying disc burst into flames when it landed. Further, that it had been the cause of a fire in some woods…The fire chief at Burbank had called the resident agent at Burbank and told him he would hold the disc for him.”

“…the object was an aluminum disc about 2’ in diameter weighing about ten pounds, painted with alumimum paint and having some sort of a radio tube in the center of the disc”

Gee, these ETs are really tiny…And if government departments need to document the statements of all crackpots, it is no wonder where tax payers money goes to.

Please give me something solid to work with, not Erich von Daniken stuff. Been there, done that. You claim you gave me proof of existence. How did you establish that proof?

I think we may have read different things…The document I read was directly from the FBI website, as it was (and still is) an official Govt document, but now de-classified. It was among a larger group of documents all released at the same time using FOIA. I dont think the FBI would have something on THEIR website that is fake.

But if you still dont want to consider that doc, think about the Senator Byrd/ Dick DaMato investigation back in the early 90s. DaMato was National security adviser at the time, he found proof of a ‘black arm’ of the government, responsible for disinformation and maintaining the secret of extraterrestrial life. Im not sure if there are any FOIA docs on this or not, but I will look.

Just because some website has other crazy things as teasers, like the few you mentioned, does not mean the FBI doc is fake or that I believe in things like that, while I do believe our govt knows about life in other places, I most certainly do not buy into the ‘really off the wall’ claims LOL

 

[ericc]

I think we may have read different things…The document I read was directly from the FBI website, as it was (and still is) an official Govt document, but now de-classified. It was among a larger group of documents all released at the same time using FOIA. I dont think the FBI would have something on THEIR website that is fake.

But if you still dont want to consider that doc, think about the Senator Byrd/ Dick DaMato investigation back in the early 90s. DaMato was National security adviser at the time, he found proof of a ‘black arm’ of the government, responsible for disinformation and maintaining the secret of extraterrestrial life. Im not sure if there are any FOIA docs on this or not, but I will look.

Just because some website has other crazy things as teasers, like the few you mentioned, does not mean the FBI doc is fake or that I believe in things like that, while I do believe our govt knows about life in other places, I most certainly do not buy into the ‘really off the wall’ claims LOL

This is the link you gave .

thecontroversialfiles.net/2015/06/declassified-fbi-document-earth-visited.html

And from that article it gave the FBI link

vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

It is a valid FBI document. Let stick with this document unless you confirm it is bogus. I won’t want to jump about reading more and more articles if you know what I mean. But I have no reason to doubt the validity of the document since you referred me to it and you sound insistent that it is true. Well, I have read it and it doesn’t like it is proof to me. If you think we are reading different pages, please refer me to the pages that you are reading and I’ll start from that POV of yours.