Wait a minute, you were just using Project Blue Book as evidence... This seems a little dishonest to me.
True that it includes me, but as I have said many times before on this forum, if your theory requires a conspiracy, it is not much of a theory.
Travis Walton and his buddies split the reward money that the National Enquirer gave them for their story. Walton was a UFO fanatic, and he knew ahead of time that National Enquirer was offering such a reward to anyone giving them a good alien abduction story. And that was just the start of the grifting. Remember the movie? They were just a group who saw he opportunity to grab some easy money.
The fact that there was a Project Bluebook is the evidence. That which doesn't exist doesn't need to be debunked.
So you're talking anecdotal stories and I'm talking hard evidence...the entire debate about ET's is based on the QUESTION; Do ET's exist? Until there is an evidence-backed answer to this question, no one knows...
What hard evidence do you require [that isn't absolute proof]? [I will wager that there is no evidence short of proof, that you would consider] We have hard evidence. We don't have scientific evidence. Fighter pilots having a dog fight with a craft far superior to anything on earth, well documented and available at the NSA, is certainly hard evidence. RADAR tracks are measurements. When these coincide with visual observation, as all happened in the Iran 76 event, we have hard evidence. When five people pass a lie detector test during a murder investigation, yielding odds of fraud at something about one in a million, with this supported by the alleged abductee, we have hard evidence. If not, then what do you define as hard evidence? That isn't really a technical term.
That is what most alleged skeptics really mean when they call for evidence. They will accept nothing less than indisputable proof as evidence, which is biased and illogical. I have found that there are two distinct types of UFO nuts - believers and non-believers. Irrational denials are no better than irrational beliefs.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! The good news is that we won't have to worry because some dude from either Texas or California who is a sheriff or drunk with former military special forces experience will save all of our asses.
I think I might have a concussion from the facepalm I just did. Did you even read what you wrote? "That which doesn't exist doesn't need to be debunked" has to be the worst logic I have seen on this forum for a while. If something that does not exist is being presented as existing, it does, indeed, need to be debunked. How can one even debunk something that actually exists? It makes no sense.
that's some weird logic, if you report to the police you saw a bear in your neighbourhood and the police arrive to investigate doesn't mean there was a bear...a big dog shaggy can dog can resemble a bear... the conclusion of blue book was that there was nothing...as did the follow up study of the Condon Report to end the debate because some were still not satisfied with blue books conclusions
does extra terrestrial life exist, statistically most likely a certainly.... does "intelligent" extra terrestrial life exist, statistically very likely but's also possible we could also be the only one or the first....has ET intelligent reached earth? there is zero evidence that it has...
Likelihood is actually unknown, we have virtually no data on systems outside of our own. We have plenty of speculation, but nothing more. For all we know, life might only be possible within a very narrow band of the universe, outside that band conditions will never exist to allow for life. That would significantly reduce the potential for life. Likewise I could be totally wrong and just about every system could possibly sustain life and we will be invaded soon...
Evidence is what you find along the trail...proof is what you find when you can dip your hands in the pot of gold. I didn't say 'evidence'...I said 'evidence backed ANSWER. This means we have enough evidence to proclaim a FACT about ET's...
where I posted "statistically most likely a certainty" I'm including all life, even microbes...and where I post "intelligent life" i'm including anything that thinks, rats cats and dogs qualify as intelligent life...
the enormity of the universe makes life and even intelligent(intelligence is subjective) life a statistical certainty imo...it maybe plentiful or we maybe the most advanced life form in this galaxy but there countless other galaxies, the enormity of the universe makes it more likely than not that life occurred elsewhere...flip a coin a gazillion times and what are the odds that heads only comes up once?
I think its more complicated than that. For life to exist there must be something between the planet and space, ie an atmosphere or at least a magnetosphere, in order to allow for the chemical reactions that life of any sort would require. Without such protection the planet surface would be unable, like the moon's or Mars. Even that isn't enough, it requires more for life of any sort to exist and prosper, and the potential for that appears to be pretty small. I'm not sure there is a good analogy for it, but we lack the data to make any type of determination at all, at this point...
I'm aware of all that but statistical probability tells me that life elsewhere is a certainty...there is an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -a billiontrillion stars in the "observable" universe and recent observation would confirm stars with multiple Jovian planets in our galaxy are common and as detection improves rocky M class planets would appear to be plentiful as well...I'm an absolute extreme end skeptic when it comes to ET visitation to earth but the statistical mathematics is hard to doubt when calculating the entire universe, nothing occurs only once...I'm even certain there is other life in our galaxy, at what level I wouldn't hazard a guess, could be a microbe or it could intelligent(subjective)
If an intelligent life form was to visit the earth , the question is not whether or not we think they were good or bad ! The question is , whether they would think we were good or bad ! If they traveled here from beyond our visual Universe , I'd hate to think what technology they'd have . They might of course already judge us to be bad , in that case they would just come here to wipe us out like a plague of rats . What I'm saying , I don't think it'll make any difference of what we think of them , they would deem themselves good if they deemed us bad .
Okay...but we don't have any certainty...even 10% certainty (if there is such a thing?), so we guess that some things are possible...like microbes, etc. when we simply don't yet know. I'm hoping we discover something, soon, but so far...nothing...
agreed nothing yet...if exploration of Mar or Jupiter's moons turns up any microbial life or had life in the past I think it's settled, the universe is most likely teaming with life...then next question is how advanced life is elsewhere, becomes the new question to be answered
