Churchill ordered UFO cover-up

Tabnabs

The government took the threat of UFOs so seriously in the 1950s that UK intelligence chiefs met to discuss the issue, newly-released files show.



Ministers even went on to commission weekly reports on UFO sightings from a committee of intelligence experts.

The papers also include a wartime account claiming prime minister Winston Churchill ordered a UFO sighting be kept secret to prevent "mass panic".

The Joint Intelligence Committee is better known for providing briefings to the government on matters relating to security, defence and foreign affairs.

But the latest batch of UFO files released from the Ministry of Defence to the National Archives shows that, in 1957, the committee received reports detailing an average of one UFO sighting a week.

The files also include an account of a wartime meeting attended by Winston Churchill in which, it is claimed, the prime minister was so concerned about a reported encounter between a UFO and RAF bombers, that he ordered it be kept secret for at least 50 years to prevent "mass panic".

Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFO sightings for the MoD, said: "The interesting thing is that most of the UFO files from that period have been destroyed.

"But what happened is that a scientist whose grandfather was one of his [Churchill's] bodyguards, said look, Churchill and Eisenhower got together to cover up this phenomenal UFO sighting, that was witnessed by an RAF crew on their way back from a bombing raid.

"The reason apparently was because Churchill believed it would cause mass panic and it would shatter people's religious views."

Reports of sightings of UFOs peaked in 1996 in the UK - when science fiction drama The X Files was popular.

According to the files, there were more than 600 reports in 1996, compared with an average of 240 in the previous five years.
Continue reading the main story

“UFOs have become the third-most popular subject for people to write to the ministry of defence saying please could you release this file”

Dr David Clarke National Archives UFO consultant

The figures for 1996 show 609 reported sightings of unidentified flying objects, 343 letters from the public to the MoD's UFO desk and 22 enquiries and questions from MPs.

But by 2009, the MoD's UFO inquiry desk -Sec(AS)2 - had been closed down.

The 18 files released on Thursday are the latest to come out as part of a three-year project between the MoD and the National Archives.

Dr David Clarke, a UFO consultant to the National Archives, explained why the papers are being made public now.

Dr Clarke told the BBC: "Since the Freedom of Information Act arrived in 2005, this subject - UFOs - have become the third-most popular subject for people to write to the Ministry of Defence saying 'please could you release this file, or papers that you hold on this particular case'.

"What they've decided to do is to be totally open and to say, 'look we're not holding any secrets back about this subject we've got all these files and we're going to make them available to the public'."

One includes details on "aerial phenomena" prepared for a meeting of the Cabinet Office's Joint Intelligence Committee in April 1957.

According to a note included in the Red Book, the weekly intelligence survey, four incidents involving UFOs tracked by RAF radars were "unexplained".
'Spaceman'

The documents also include reports of a famous incident dubbed the "Welsh Roswell" in 1974, where members of the public reported seeing lights in the sky and feeling a tremor in the ground.

Other cases included in the files are:

* A near-miss with an "unidentified object" reported by the captain and first officer of a 737 plane approaching Manchester Airport in 1995.

* A mountain rescue team called to investigate a "crashed UFO" in the Berwyn Mountains in Wales in 1974.

* Attempted break-ins at RAF Rudloe Manor in Wiltshire - sometimes referred to as Britain's "Area 51" - the US's secretive desert military base.
* The Western Isles incident, when a loud explosion was reported in the sky over the Atlantic in the Outer Hebrides.
* The 14-minutes of "missing" film relating to the Blue Streak missile test launch in 1964, believed by some to show a "spaceman".
* A gambler from Leeds who held a 100-1 bet on alien life being discovered before the end of the 20th Century, and who approached the government for evidence to support his claim after the bookmakers refused to pay out. The MoD said it was open-minded about extra-terrestrial life but had no evidence of its existence.

The files come from more than 5,000 pages of UFO reports and letters and drawings from members of the public, as well as questions raised by MPs in Parliament.

source

Lab_Mouse

I also believe that recently enough that the british department of defence closed down there uf o department as there was no percieveable threat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6723067/MoD-department-that-investigated-UFO-sightings-closed.html

jurgenscarl

You are aware that the explosion in UFO sightings in the late 1940's, 1950's and 1960's coincided precisely with the explosion in commercial passenger air travel - lots of airplanes flying overhead at night with flashing lights that can be seen for miles?

TonyD79

UFOs have been reported long before commercial passenger air travel. I think the increase in sigthings reported has a lot to do with an increase in media publications.

From that Telegraph article.

"“no UFO report has revealed any evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom”

Doesnt dismiss/debunk the UFO reports either. Think information will be slowly revealed but cannot see any big announcements in our lifetime so plenty more books and online material to continue to generate profit on the subject .

jurgenscarl

TonyD79 wrote: »

UFOs have been reported long before commercial passenger air travel. I think the increase in sigthings reported has a lot to do with an increase in media publications.

From that Telegraph article.



Doesnt dismiss/debunk the UFO reports either. Think information will be slowly revealed but cannot see any big announcements in our lifetime so plenty more books and online material to continue to generate profit on the subject .

Rubbish

Pygmalion

jurgenscarl wrote: »

Rubbish

Playing Devil's advocate here (I'm only in this forum because I'm incredibly bored :pac:) but you could attribute the explosion of UFO sightings around the 40s/50s to many things.

It's feasible that "they" decided to try and get involved in our affairs and/or watch us more closely when they saw the effects of WW2, and the nuclear weapons we were creating. This was pretty much the first time in history we've had the power to destroy the world in a real way, they would have many reasons to observe and possibly try to stop this, ranging from having sinister plans for us to simple compassion. Also if you consider the possibility that we're the only other intelligent life they know of the potential for study is amazing, think of what you could learn about evolution and society if you could observe a race of "people" with our intelligence and achievements, but who developed in a world with completely different social events, beliefs and morals.
Another (slightly related) possibility is that they saw the advancements we've been making with respect to space travel, computers, long distance communication (to link back to the first point much of these achievements came from the war, or benefited in some way from military attention). It's feasible that they saw these and figured we may at some point in the (relatively) near future discover long distance space travel by ourselves, or learn of their existence with the help of our SETI projects and decided to help, hinder or observe us.

Also coming into a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" and telling everyone that there are no UFOs is a bit of a waste of time don't you think?

jurgenscarl

Pygmalion wrote: »

Playing Devil's advocate here (I'm only in this forum because I'm incredibly bored :pac:) but you could attribute the explosion of UFO sightings around the 40s/50s to many things.

It's feasible that "they" decided to try and get involved in our affairs and/or watch us more closely when they saw the effects of WW2, and the nuclear weapons we were creating. This was pretty much the first time in history we've had the power to destroy the world in a real way, they would have many reasons to observe and possibly try to stop this, ranging from having sinister plans for us to simple compassion. Also if you consider the possibility that we're the only other intelligent life they know of the potential for study is amazing, think of what you could learn about evolution and society if you could observe a race of "people" with our intelligence and achievements, but who developed in a world with completely different social events, beliefs and morals.
Another (slightly related) possibility is that they saw the advancements we've been making with respect to space travel, computers, long distance communication (to link back to the first point much of these achievements came from the war, or benefited in some way from military attention). It's feasible that they saw these and figured we may at some point in the (relatively) near future discover long distance space travel by ourselves, or learn of their existence with the help of our SETI projects and decided to help, hinder or observe us.

Also coming into a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" and telling everyone that there are no UFOs is a bit of a waste of time don't you think?

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?
The theory with the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
When a person claims to have seen a UFO there are three possibilities.
(a) He is lying.
(b) He has mistaken an innocous natural phenomenon or an aircraft to be a ufo.
(c) He has seen a alien spaceship.
a and b are more likely to be true than c.

Joshua Jones

jurgenscarl wrote: »

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?
The theory with the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
When a person claims to have seen a UFO there are three possibilities.
(a) He is lying.
(b) He has mistaken an innocous natural phenomenon or an aircraft to be a ufo.
(c) He has seen a alien spaceship.
a and b are more likely to be true than c.

Rubbish.

jurgenscarl

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Rubbish.

Rubbish

bonkey

A bit more discussion wouldn't go astray, lads.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

A bit more discussion wouldn't go astray, lads.

Rubbish











Now Bonkey, please see the funny side of what I just did, don't ban me for a month, mod hat off and put on your red nose and join the fun......

Pygmalion

jurgenscarl wrote: »

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?

You've never heard of a Conspiracy Theory have you?

Killer Pigeon

Watching a little bit too much Doctor Who, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RueFey2aPc

The Highwayman

With all the nuclear testing done during the 50/60 and into 70's maybe thats what attracted nearby celestial beings. Someone/thing surely would have heard all the racket.

DustyMan

Have any of you heard of 'Majestic' 12?

Google it and see and read about them and why .........
it's.............

maninasia

jurgenscarl wrote: »

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?
The theory with the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
When a person claims to have seen a UFO there are three possibilities.
(a) He is lying.
(b) He has mistaken an innocous natural phenomenon or an aircraft to be a ufo.
(c) He has seen a alien spaceship.
a and b are more likely to be true than c.

Yes, so when we see a light it must be the sun because it is the simplest of explanations. This is useless logic.

humanji

maninasia wrote: »

Yes, so when we see a light it must be the sun because it is the simplest of explanations. This is useless logic.

That's nothing to do with Occam's Razor.

WakeUp

I think this is one of the best interviews from the disclosure project its only 2 mins 13 seconds. Karl Wolf US Air Force, for some reason Im not able to embed youtube videos anymore so I'll have to just post the link is worth a look at very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY

maninasia

humanji wrote: »

That's nothing to do with Occam's Razor.

Using the idea of Occam's razor to figure out complex and rare phenomena is useless....as it in this case favours the simple 'known' and
'accepted' explanation. The simplest explanations CANNOT explain some phenomena and some sightings...therefore our understanding is lacking (either of the physics of the natural world or of the presence of other life forms). Doubt me? Do a search for Earthlights and Earthquakelights...a real and unexplained natural phenomena. Using Occam's razor this was often explained away as misperceptions and hallucinations..until a Japanese photographer captured a picture during an earthquake in the 1960s.

Prior to the middle ages people thought the earth was flat, of course it was otherwise how would we all stick to a ball? Didn't the Sun go round the Earth...simple. Using the simple explanation too much can lead you down a blind path, you need to do independent research. Occam's razor depends on accepted theories of the present day, it is highly dependent on peoples individual viewpoints. The same with when electrons were fired through a gold sheet and it was found they bounced through two holes at the same time..Occam's razor would say quantum effects are most likely experimental error but that would have been very wrong. They were able to disprove experimental error by repeating the experiment thousands of times. Can you do that with a rarely observed poorly understood phenomena in the laboratory of the real world?

For another example take ball lightning. Ball lightning was not truly accepted by most of the scientific community until the last few decades. It's still not understood how they form. However now most 'reputable' scientists believe in ball lightning, there have been enough reports and research done to confirm for them it exists (and for them not look silly by saying this exists). So when a UFO is now sighted Occam's razor says that is probably ball lightning. A few decades ago Occam's razor would have said these people are crackpots for seeing ball lightning.

Your description above ASSUMES that alien civilisation does not exist or at least is extremely unlikely, well that assumption may be completely wrong and I think you need to keep an open mind on that.

DustyMan

Good post!

Check out this documentary on 'Majestic 12' folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IANliKvHb4

humanji

maninasia wrote: »

Using the idea of Occam's razor to figure out complex and rare phenomena is useless....as it in this case favours the simple 'known' and
'accepted' explanation. The simplest explanations CANNOT explain some phenomena and some sightings...therefore our understanding is lacking (either of the physics of the natural world or of the presence of other life forms). Doubt me? Do a search for Earthlights and Earthquakelights...a real and unexplained natural phenomena. Using Occam's razor this was often explained away as misperceptions and hallucinations..until a Japanese photographer captured a picture during an earthquake in the 1960s.

Prior to the middle ages people thought the earth was flat, of course it was otherwise how would we all stick to a ball? Didn't the Sun go round the Earth...simple. Using the simple explanation too much can lead you down a blind path, you need to do independent research. Occam's razor depends on accepted theories of the present day, it is highly dependent on peoples individual viewpoints. The same with when electrons were fired through a gold sheet and it was found they bounced through two holes at the same time..Occam's razor would say quantum effects are most likely experimental error but that would have been very wrong. They were able to disprove experimental error by repeating the experiment thousands of times. Can you do that with a rarely observed poorly understood phenomena in the laboratory of the real world?

For another example take ball lightning. Ball lightning was not truly accepted by most of the scientific community until the last few decades. It's still not understood how they form. However now most 'reputable' scientists believe in ball lightning, there have been enough reports and research done to confirm for them it exists (and for them not look silly by saying this exists). So when a UFO is now sighted Occam's razor says that is probably ball lightning. A few decades ago Occam's razor would have said these people are crackpots for seeing ball lightning.

Your description above ASSUMES that alien civilisation does not exist or at least is extremely unlikely, well that assumption may be completely wrong and I think you need to keep an open mind on that.

I'm not fully sure what you're trying to prove. Firstly, very few people ever thougth the Earth was flat, but that's not really an issue here.

You gave what you thought was an example of Occam's Razor. I pointed out that it wasn't. With Occam's Razor you take the evidence at hand and think of what the most likely cause is.

If you example was "I am outside, it is daytime, there is a light in the sky." Then Occam's Razor would indicate that the Sun is the most likely cause of the light.

Assuming any source of light must be the sun isn't a case of Occam's Razor, it's just a silly thing to assume. There is a scientific method to Occam's. It's not just guessing and ignoring data.

With your other examples above, Occam's Razor would be used to try and tell what the mose likely cause is, not for deciding 100% what the cause is. The idea behind it is that many people will jump to wild conclusions that don't actually make sense, when there's a perfectly obvious explanation. It doesn't mean that the wild conclusion is wrong, only that it isn't always the most likely one.

maninasia

Yes and I have clearly shown the weakness in depending too much on Occam's razor. It is a simple tool but a very weak tool of the scientific method.

It cannot deal with rare, unpredictable or new phenomena. It depends on the perception and understanding of society and of scientists. It is often used to make a glib explanation by people who haven't done their own research. It is too often wrong. That's my problem with Occam's razor. It is the lazy man's way out.

Dave!

maninasia wrote: »

Yes and I have clearly shown the weakness in depending too much on Occam's razor. It is a simple tool but a very weak tool of the scientific method.

It cannot deal with rare, unpredictable or new phenomena. It depends on the perception and understanding of society and of scientists. It is often used to make a glib explanation by people who haven't done their own research. It is too often wrong. That's my problem with Occam's razor. It is the lazy man's way out.

It's a good rule of thumb though. Once the evidence is overwhelming, then people have no choice but to accept the 'new phenomena'. Unfortunately the evidence for UFOs is very weak at the moment.

maninasia

To give a further example, my Occam's razor suggests that certain sightings are legitimate. Why? Because I have studied a lot about the galaxy's statistics, physics and life science. It seems FAR more plausible to me that there are other civilisations spread through the galaxy than not (age of galaxy/chemical evolution/size of galaxy/current technological development on Earth/current knowledge of physics). Because I believe it is more plausible I will keep an open mind about certain sightings and their descriptions, if they match with descriptions from other sightings and sources I give it an even higher rating. If they describe abilities that cannot be matched by human technology and they are witnessed by multiple reliable witnesses...well I use my Occam's razor to make my own judgement.

But my explanation would not be 'acceptable' to most people's Occam's razor even though those people have not done any independent research and just follow society's general pronounciation of what is acceptable (remember my ball lightning example above?). That is why I think it is lazy and often a cop out argument. Get it?

maninasia

Dave! wrote: »

It's a good rule of thumb though. Once the evidence is overwhelming, then people have no choice but to accept the 'new phenomena'. Unfortunately the evidence for UFOs is very weak at the moment.

Yes I agree, of course evidence for God is absolutely non-existent but it doesn't stop half the people in the world believing in him.
At least UFOs actually have some evidence and logical theories behind them pointing to possible origins. Hard evidence...seems very hard to get for whatever reason (it could be that more advanced life-forms just make it very difficult for us..and therefore we cannot access hard evidence, this would be very easy for an advanced civilisation to do, it could also be they don't make any particular effort to hide but our technology and scientific understanding is not advanced enough to gather that evidence).

TalkieWalkie

jurgenscarl wrote: »

You are aware that the explosion in UFO sightings in the late 1940's, 1950's and 1960's coincided precisely with the explosion in commercial passenger air travel - lots of airplanes flying overhead at night with flashing lights that can be seen for miles?

Actually the "explosion" in UFO sightings coincide with the explosion of the first atomic bomb.

humanji

maninasia wrote: »

To give a further example, my Occam's razor suggests that certain sightings are legitimate. Why? Because I have studied a lot about the galaxy's statistics, physics and life science. It seems FAR more plausible to me that there are other civilisations spread through the galaxy than not (age of galaxy/chemical evolution/size of galaxy/current technological development on Earth/current knowledge of physics). Because I believe it is more plausible I will keep an open mind about certain sightings and their descriptions, if they match with descriptions from other sightings and sources I give it an even higher rating. If they describe abilities that cannot be matched by human technology and they are witnessed by multiple reliable witnesses...well I use my Occam's razor to make my own judgement.

But my explanation would not be 'acceptable' to most people's Occam's razor even though those people have not done any independent research and just follow society's general pronounciation of what is acceptable (remember my ball lightning example above?). That is why I think it is lazy and often a cop out argument. Get it? QUOTE]

Only the first part of that is related to the Occam's Razor choice. You don't know that there is life elsewhere in the univese, but Occam's Razor states that there most likely is. That's the only part of that post where Occam's Razor plays a part.

Since the rest relies on an unknown factor (is there life elsewhere in the univese or not) then they are leaps in faith. You also don't know if the witnesses are truly reliable. So if you wanted to apply Occam's Razor to it you would have to ask "If there is life elsewhere in the universe and if these witnesses are reliable and if their information matches up then Occam's Razor would suggest that they were true sightings of alien craft"

There's 3 unknown variables there that mean Occam's Razor can't be applied to it. It can only be applied to simple questions. And you're right, it can't be used for things that defy our current understanding, but it's not meant to. It's simply a way of defining the most logical explanation base on our current knowledge.

maninasia

Well here we go again. Because if you ask most people they will say that because they don't see any other life in the universe Occam's razor says we are the only one. Then just one proven sighting of an alien and Occam's razor becomes 'of course there is tonnes of life in the universe'.
That's why I HATE when people bring up Occam's razor....it is of hardly any use in this scenario and it completely depends on your perception and knowledge of science (or lack of it) and also your confidence that you KNOW something for sure. I'd rather use my own judgement from the things I've learned which suggests the situation is a lot more complex than 'this is the most likely scenario' based on our present state of knowledge. One false conclusion early on with Occam's razor and you are completely screwed...

Really the main issue is our present state of knowledge is equivalent to a dim-witted ant in many ways but a lot folks, even scientists, are overly sure of what they know. They'll say 'all the reports are fake', 'it was a weather balloon', yet they have no real evidence for that either, it's like concluding what picture a puzzle represents by looking at 50 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw. Every 50 pieces that gets added on changes the current knowledge dramatically and most people are too arrogant to admit this.

namloc1980

WakeUp wrote: »

I think this is one of the best interviews from the disclosure project its only 2 mins 13 seconds. Karl Wolf US Air Force, for some reason Im not able to embed youtube videos anymore so I'll have to just post the link is worth a look at very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY

Karl Wolf is not credible in the slightest. He claimed that in mid-1965 he was working at Langley AFB and that one day he was called in to fix some photographic equipment that was being used to process images from the Lunar Orbiter mission. He claims that he went into a room where the equipment was and while there an unranked airman showed him pictures taken by Lunar Orbiter of artificial structures on the moon. Karl Wolf was also an unranked airman. Now, not only is it unbelievable that two unranked airmen would have unsupervised access to these allegedly highly sensitive documents, but there is no way he could have seen images from Lunar Orbiter in 1965....why? Because the Lunar Orbiter program didn't commence until 1966. His story is not credible.

WakeUp

namloc1980 wrote: »

Karl Wolf is not credible in the slightest. He claimed that in mid-1965 he was working at Langley AFB and that one day he was called in to fix some photographic equipment that was being used to process images from the Lunar Orbiter mission. He claims that he went into a room where the equipment was and while there an unranked airman showed him pictures taken by Lunar Orbiter of artificial structures on the moon. Karl Wolf was also an unranked airman. Now, not only is it unbelievable that two unranked airmen would have unsupervised access to these allegedly highly sensitive documents, but there is no way he could have seen images from Lunar Orbiter in 1965....why? Because the Lunar Orbiter program didn't commence until 1966. His story is not credible.

Cant argue with that you're right it didnt launch until 1966, maybe he got his dates mixed up although you would expect better from someone claiming something like this. I just always wonder though why say something like that or say you will testify under oath infront of congress if you are not telling the truth or at least basing what you are saying on some sort of evidence you have seen.

maninasia

Here we see scientists' occam razor subtley being shifted by an expert in the field..a signal that it's okay to publicly discuss other possibilities without getting laughed at.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11043922

humanji

Again, that's nothing to do with Occam's Razor.

charlemont

any one with a decent knowledge of pre christian irish mythology will see the similarities between the ufo/ alien stories of today... im not going into detail about this because its so obvious to anyone with half a brain ...

humanji

Then why bother posting?

maninasia

Your opinion, Occam's razor depends on which accepted truth is thought of as the likeliest. Now we see the likiehood of what type of alien life exists being subtly shifted by scientists, Occam's razor conclusions will change.
Basically Occam's razor has no place in this debate and should be kicked into the dustbin.

humanji

Occam's Razor is a deductive method of guessing. It is not, I repeat NOT a valid scientific method of defining fact. Nobody has claimed it was. And that clip is about what alien life could be like. It's nothing definite, just a guys opinion. That's all it is.

maninasia

Exactly, just like Occam's razor , opinion and guesswork.

Anyway, the reason why I posted that guy's 'opinion' is that anybody with common sense would have foreseen that advanced civilisations are likely to be very different from our present state of technology and evolution, but that his public annoucement of suggesting other life-forms somehow makes the news.

Ash.J.Williams

Judging by the diagram in the op:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%28game%29

Mystery solved.

DustyMan

Complex Life Elsewhere in the Universe?
'I think this is an occasion where that old principal of good science, Occam's Razor, is helpful. Apply Occam's Razor to the question of the origin of life on Earth. We look at the Earth, and with regards to that origin, as best we know, no special or freak circumstances were required. It took water, organics, a source of energy, and a long time. Deep-sea vents are the current favorite and a reasonable place for the origin. But even if they weren't the culprits, the chemists have found a multitude of other pathways that produce the chemistry of life. The challenge seems to be not to find THE pathway, but the one that was the quickest and most productive. The prime point is that nothing special was required. There will be a pathway that works, on Earth and on similar planets. Then, by Occam's Razor, the origin of life on Earth is nothing more than the result of normal processes on the planet. Furthermore, life should appear very frequently on other Earth-like planets. There will be microbial life nearby the solar system.'
Frank Drake of 'The Drake Equation'.

DustyMan

And just to open another can of worms!

Fermi Paradox - Where Are They?

Enrico Fermi pondered extraterrestrial life
He thought it would take about 10,000,000 years to colonize the Milky Way
We haven't seen them - Why? - This is the Paradox of Fermi
1.Perhaps civilizations are content to stay at home
2.Perhaps it takes longer
3.Perhaps it has happened but we are not aware of it.

RoboClam

DustyMan wrote: »

Complex Life Elsewhere in the Universe?
'I think this is an occasion where that old principal of good science, Occam's Razor, is helpful. Apply Occam's Razor to the question of the origin of life on Earth. We look at the Earth, and with regards to that origin, as best we know, no special or freak circumstances were required. It took water, organics, a source of energy, and a long time. Deep-sea vents are the current favorite and a reasonable place for the origin. But even if they weren't the culprits, the chemists have found a multitude of other pathways that produce the chemistry of life. The challenge seems to be not to find THE pathway, but the one that was the quickest and most productive. The prime point is that nothing special was required. There will be a pathway that works, on Earth and on similar planets. Then, by Occam's Razor, the origin of life on Earth is nothing more than the result of normal processes on the planet. Furthermore, life should appear very frequently on other Earth-like planets. There will be microbial life nearby the solar system.'
Frank Drake of 'The Drake Equation'.

To continue this point, look what was discovered recently here.

Life may not be as rare as we think. Well, single celled organisms at least. I don't doubt that somewhere in the universe there is intelligent life. The universe is so big that it's only a matter of time. But distance is the main problem. The nearest Earth like planets that we know of are 100s of millions of light years away. I just cannot believe that there are aliens here, simply due to the impracticality of traveling to this planet. I'd love to be wrong on this of course.

maninasia

DustyMan wrote: »

Complex Life Elsewhere in the Universe?
'I think this is an occasion where that old principal of good science, Occam's Razor, is helpful. Apply Occam's Razor to the question of the origin of life on Earth. We look at the Earth, and with regards to that origin, as best we know, no special or freak circumstances were required. It took water, organics, a source of energy, and a long time. Deep-sea vents are the current favorite and a reasonable place for the origin. But even if they weren't the culprits, the chemists have found a multitude of other pathways that produce the chemistry of life. The challenge seems to be not to find THE pathway, but the one that was the quickest and most productive. The prime point is that nothing special was required. There will be a pathway that works, on Earth and on similar planets. Then, by Occam's Razor, the origin of life on Earth is nothing more than the result of normal processes on the planet. Furthermore, life should appear very frequently on other Earth-like planets. There will be microbial life nearby the solar system.'
Frank Drake of 'The Drake Equation'.

Is this a wind-up?
Anyway it just illustrates that the concept of 'Occam's Razor' can be applied anyway you wish according to their personal preferences. I don't see where it take's its place here though because we just don't know enough even about the principles of life formation. We certainly DO NOT know if life took a long time or not to appear on Earth, in fact it seems to have started on Earth very soon after the crust formed and it could well have formed off Earth and been brought here by Panspermia.

I agree with the conclusions he reaches though.

maninasia

RoboClam wrote: »

To continue this point, look what was discovered recently here.

Life may not be as rare as we think. Well, single celled organisms at least. I don't doubt that somewhere in the universe there is intelligent life. The universe is so big that it's only a matter of time. But distance is the main problem. The nearest Earth like planets that we know of are 100s of millions of light years away. I just cannot believe that there are aliens here, simply due to the impracticality of traveling to this planet. I'd love to be wrong on this of course.

I answer this old hedgehog again and again on Boards. Distance is NOT an issue. Why?

- Universe is 14 billion years old
- The Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years across
- Contains 2 x 10*12 planets or so
- Travel across Milky Way at half speed of light would take 200,000 years
- Robotic entities are probably more common than biological in space
- Robotic entities are immortal and can replicate in vast numbers
- Any civilisation travelling through the galaxy could replicate and split off to new areas as it travelled, giving us a rough estimate of 1 million years to cover the entire galaxy at speeds much less than the speed of light
- 1 million years is less than .00017% the time of the universes existence or put in terms of an 80 year olds man's life about 5 days

So tell me why is distance a problem for intelligent entities to get around? The numbers tell us it is almost a 100% certainty that intelligent entities are ALREADY all over the galaxy...given the high likeliehood there are at least 100s -1000s of intelligent civilisations developing in the Milky Way over the billions of years preceding our development. To argue that there are not intelligent entities in our zone of space would mean that the physics/chemistry of our region is somehow special compared to everywhere else...I don't think so..even if it is special to be a 1 in a million solar system that still leaves possibly TWO MILLION solar systems developing intelligent life JUST in the Milky Way Galaxy!

BTW, all the above don't include modern theories such as multiverse, extra dimensions, possible faster than light travel, wormholes etc.

RoboClam

maninasia wrote: »

I answer this old hedgehog again and again on Boards. Distance is NOT an issue. Why?

- Universe is 14 billion years old
- The Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years across
- Contains 2 x 10*12 planets or so
- Travel across Milky Way at half speed of light would take 200,000 years

You say the milky way is 100,000 light years across which is true. But you do not mention that the volume of the milky way is ~3.3 × 10^61 m³ or 39 million million cubic light years. This is obviously, huge. Any civilization could not hope to make a dent in this. The energy requirements for travel at half the speed of light would be insane, but assuming that it's possible then in 200,000 years all that would be accomplished would be traveling the diameter of the galaxy.

- Robotic entities are probably more common than biological in space
- Robotic entities are immortal and can replicate in vast numbers

This is just an baseless assumption really, especially the bolded bit.

- Any civilisation travelling through the galaxy could replicate and split off to new areas as it travelled, giving us a rough estimate of 1 million years to cover the entire galaxy at speeds much less than the speed of light

I think you might need to rethink your maths on this one based on the volume of the galaxy I posted above. Also would one civilization last for a million years? How would their colonies communicate? Would each colonised planet have to rebuild its civilization on the new planet, only to make new ships to colonise other planets? Doesn't really sound like the best course of action for a highly advanced race.

So tell me why is distance a problem for intelligent entities to get around? The numbers tell us it is almost a 100% certainty that intelligent entities are ALREADY all over the galaxy...given the high likeliehood there are at least 100s -1000s of intelligent civilisations developing in the Milky Way over the billions of years preceding our development.

We have been evolving for ~4 billion of years to get to the point we're at now. Only recently have we attained knowledge which allows us to even comprehend space. We still are not even close to figuring out interstellar travel. Based on what we know, it would be fair to assume the same for any intelligent life. So civilization as we know is only a small blip on our planets history. If there are other planets which can support intelligent life, who's to say that it does support it now? Your argument is based on the idea that civilizations do not die out and that once they form, they will exist forever.

An advanced civilization probably has a limited window of opportunity in which to actually meet another advanced civilization.

To argue that there are not intelligent entities in our zone of space would mean that the physics/chemistry of our region is somehow special compared to everywhere else...I don't think so..even if it is special to be a 1 in a million solar system that still leaves possibly TWO MILLION solar systems developing intelligent life JUST in the Milky Way Galaxy!

You say "just" inside the Milky Way Galaxy as if it's a small place. Assuming your 2 million number, how many of these planets would form multicellular organisms? How many would form intelligent life? How many would be able to make it to the level we're at? And finally, how many would be able to break the laws of physics as we know them and be able to travel at high speeds to other planets?

BTW, all the above don't include modern theories such as multiverse, extra dimensions, possible faster than light travel, wormholes etc.

All of which are interesting, but hypothetical.

DustyMan

maninasia wrote: »

Is this a wind-up?
Anyway it just illustrates that the concept of 'Occam's Razor' can be applied anyway you wish according to their personal preferences. I don't see where it take's its place here though because we just don't know enough even about the principles of life formation. We certainly DO NOT know if life took a long time or not to appear on Earth, in fact it seems to have started on Earth very soon after the crust formed and it could well have formed off Earth and been brought here by Panspermia.

I agree with the conclusions he reaches though.

No! Not a wind up. Why would you think that? I'ts of intrest in the context of the discussion here.
p.s I'm sure Mr. Drake would be glad you agree with his conclusions!

maninasia

Wow Roboclam did you not read anything I wrote instead of reflexively trying to deny the basic logic. There's a few misconceptions that cropped up in your post.

It would NOT require massive energy to reach half the speed of light, it would just require a high % of the mass of the ship to be dedicated to propellant (although I don't pretend to be expert on the physics). Acceleration can be relatively gradual, something you don't seem to understand.

The robotic entities would be essentially immortal...of course, there is nothing baseless about it! They could have the capacity to download themselves into new machinery at will. Get your head around that yet? In fact this capacity will probably emerge in our own lifetimes. The robotic entities could well have originally have been biological.

The real explorer probes would replicate in millions/billions in each star system for moving onto the next system in each direction in an every increasing bubble outwards. So volume as you say is not an issue, only diameter. They will evolve as they spread outward so the ultimate effects of their exploration in different areas are unknown. This is one scenario.

A very likely alternative scenario is that intelligent (and non-intelligent such as bacteria) life forms spread through the universe NOT as part of a civilisation but simply in the search for new territories and resources, it only happens that these life forms have the capability to travel through space. The idea that 'planets' and 'space' are somehow separated is simply a technological limitation of our time. It only takes ONE life form to gain ability to travel through space...as it spreads into different territories it will diverge and evolve to take advantage of the local resources, exactly the same thing happens on Earth, speciation is driven by time and isolation. ALL LIFE ON EARTH IS THOUGHT TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM ONE CELL.


Again you state that the 'Milky Way is huge'. This is according to YOU. Your anthropomorphic way of thinking. Take YOU out of the equation the galaxy is not small/big, it just depends on technological capabilities and lifespans, exactly the same difference in perception as the Atlantic appeared to early Viking explores and now appears to us as we jet across to New York for a shopping trip. Please remove YOUR position in your view and let all the possibilities be entertained equally.

maninasia

DustyMan wrote: »

No! Not a wind up. Why would you think that? I'ts of intrest in the context of the discussion here.
p.s I'm sure Mr. Drake would be glad you agree with his conclusions!

You can read my comments about Occam's razor earlier..it seems everybody who like to join UFO/Alien threads likes to start out with this too...'according to Occam's razor....' even famous scientists such as Drake.

RoboClam

maninasia wrote: »

Wow Roboclam did you not read anything I wrote instead of reflexively trying to deny the basic logic. There's a few misconceptions that cropped up in your post.

It would NOT require massive energy to reach half the speed of light, it would just require a high % of the mass of the ship to be dedicated to propellant (although I don't pretend to be expert on the physics). Acceleration can be relatively gradual, something you don't seem to understand.

The robotic entities would be essentially immortal...of course, there is nothing baseless about it! They could have the capacity to download themselves into new machinery at will. Get your head around that yet? In fact this capacity will probably emerge in our own lifetimes. The robotic entities could well have originally have been biological.

The real explorer probes would replicate in millions/billions in each star system for moving onto the next system in each direction in an every increasing bubble outwards. So volume as you say is not an issue, only diameter. They will evolve as they spread outward so the ultimate effects of their exploration in different areas are unknown. This is one scenario.

A very likely alternative scenario is that intelligent (and non-intelligent such as bacteria) life forms spread through the universe NOT as part of a civilisation but simply in the search for new territories and resources, it only happens that these life forms have the capability to travel through space. The idea that 'planets' and 'space' are somehow separated is simply a technological limitation of our time. It only takes ONE life form to gain ability to travel through space...as it spreads into different territories it will diverge and evolve to take advantage of the local resources, exactly the same thing happens on Earth, speciation is driven by time and isolation. ALL LIFE ON EARTH IS THOUGHT TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM ONE CELL.


Again you state that the 'Milky Way is huge'. This is according to YOU. Your anthropomorphic way of thinking. Take YOU out of the equation the galaxy is not small/big, it just depends on technological capabilities and lifespans, exactly the same difference in perception as the Atlantic appeared to early Viking explores and now appears to us as we jet across to New York for a shopping trip. Please remove YOUR position in your view and let all the possibilities be entertained equally.

You're totally focused on these "robotic entities". Yeah, I saw that episode of Stargate too and they were pretty cool. Your entire argument is based off the fact that such entities are possible. You make out that half the speed of light is trivial, but it really isn't. A quick google tells me that "Accelerating one ton to one-tenth of the speed of light requires at least 450 PJ or 4.5 × 1017 J or 125 billion kWh" which is huge (and no, not just huge to me). How would something which I assume is quite small carry the fuel necessary for travel at such speeds? How would they simply replicate on other planets which only contain unprocessed ore embedded in rock? Is there anything these robots can't do? Why haven't we seen any evidence of them yet? By your logic they should already have taken over this planet at some stage in the past.

Your entire post, while a nice fantasy, is simply science fiction.

maninasia

Sure it's science fiction backed by a lot of science fact, unlike your unimaginative and repetitive pronoucements, still thinking the galaxy is huge, because it is, to you, that's clever

You like to disparage me as picking ideas up from Stargate, but these ideas have been around for at least 100 years, before the modern IT era.

I am also not totally focused on 'robotic entities', if anything bacteria should also be common through the galaxy. But intelligent machines would have the brainpower and technology to spread much quicker in a direct way, as they could adapt their machines to the resources of the host system (unlike a biological organism which does not have the power to do this and has a programmed life span and a total dependency on the environment which it evolved in).

Anybody with half a brain can see the exponential acceleration in IT capabilities, mind reading instruments are already being developed, bionic parts, parallel procession chips doubling in power every couple of years, UAV taking over combat operations, everything networked and going wireless, quantum computers just over the horizon. It's VERY clear what is happening already. This is in the period of 50 years, a literal microsecond in evolution..the whole process is accelerating now.

Why we cannot see already...maybe they are here we just can't detect them or else they are hiding as I said previously. It makes MORE sense to think that life has already spread through the galaxy than not, and I have given the basic reasoning already not least the age of the Universe and the time when life started on Earth along with the recent rapid technological developments of humans, 3 solid facts which you cannot refute.

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

Is there anything these robots can't do? Why haven't we seen any evidence of them yet? By your logic they should already have taken over this planet at some stage in the past.

Your entire post, while a nice fantasy, is simply science fiction.

Were only finding out that Churchill ordered a cover-up of UFO's for 50 years; now.

Surprise !!!, in 50 years time we'll find out about other sh!t they are covering up today.

Is that an impossibility ?

Is it ? !!!!

TalkieWalkie