Do you believe in UFO?

[abductor]

Hi

folks,

Yes the military had caught me on my space ship.. someones believe that it's not a space ship but its

just a fly on the lens..
check the video -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZjHw7rV4Co
and If

you have any story about it to tell.. please post here..

Kind regards..

[belgareth]

That one isn't very

convincing. I think I'd vote for the fly myself.

I do not doubt the existence of life on other planets and

think it highly probable that life form other planets could be far advanced to us. The biggest question I have about

it is why would they be coming to this insignificant dust speck at the fringes of the galaxy that we call earth? At

the same time, there are a lot of strange, unexplained sightings, pictures and so on. Stable, reliable whitnesses

like pilots and even astronauts lends a lot of credibility to the sightings as does massive simultaneos sightings by

independent groups over a large area. Some things just defy conventional explanations. That does qualify them as

Unidentified Flying Objects. It does not prove they are from another planet. Nor does my statement exclude the

possibilty.

The thing that makes me the most sceptical is probably something that makes the claims more

convincing to many. That is the human like appearance. That creature would look anything like us is improbable in

the extreme. Perhaps random selection would give creatures from other worlds sensory organs clustered on the highest

point available, that seems reasonable. But to have two eyes, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth in an almost

identical configuration to us stretches probablity to far. Having two arms and legs similar to ours is stretching it

a lot further.

[abductor]

What about this one

!..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1y...elated&search=

Well, but may all fake

..
see the true about first moon landing of the apollo 11 mission in 1969!



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=02VCpMzHcE8

[belgareth]

I'd be more inclined to

believe the first one over the second. Either could be faked but I do believe we landed on the moon. With a large

enough telescope you can see the lunar lander. That's kind of hard to fake, as are all the independent tracking

reports.

If the first is a true event, as has been reported in the past, all it demonstrates is that something

was out there. We don't know what.

[DrSmellThis]

The

thing that makes me the most sceptical is probably something that makes the claims more convincing to many. That is

the human like appearance. That creature would look anything like us is improbable in the extreme. Perhaps random

selection would give creatures from other worlds sensory organs clustered on the highest point available, that seems

reasonable. But to have two eyes, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth in an almost identical configuration to us

stretches probablity to far. Having two arms and legs similar to ours is stretching it a lot further.

I find

this a very interesting opinion, really an important point to consider, and therefore more than worthy of a long

reply, not to burden anyone.

I'd certainly agree if I thought the local universe operated mostly according to

randomness, as pseudo neo-Darwinians (more biological types than anyone else) tend to have it. It's kind of the

party line.
But studying the geometry and math inherent to nature (a field sometimes referred to as "sacred

geometry", a bit off putting of a misnomer for scientific types) made me conclude the opposite, almost -- that there

are definitely recurring numeric, mathematical, geometric, and other kinds of patterns everywhere on earth, and

these extend into our solar system. Some ratios of orbits, relative sizes of planets, etc., can be accounted for

more precisely than chance would allow by the same, simplest geomety that accounts for ratios in the human body,

which are identical to numbers in countless other places in nature.

Random, natural selection is a default,

fallback, or "trashcan" law (not putting it down, but comparing it to a "trashcan diagnosis" in medicine). It's

very useful, to be sure, but not the only pattern in nature, to put it mildly.

Anyone who wants an introduction

to the repeating, consistent numbers everywhere in your body and nature need only check out their arm. Notice that

the ratio of the first section of your finger compared to the second is identical to that of the second compared to

the third. This = hand/wrist = forearm/rest of arm = foot to calve to thigh, etc, etc. The same goes for all the

bones in your toes and feet, legs, and spine. The ratio is roughly 5/3.

The same number or ratio is in quite a

few places in your face as well, as in growth patterns of leaves, limbs of trees, and flower petals, which proceed

in exact "Fibonnacci sequences".

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

It's all one

number! There are literally more than thousands of examples everywhere you look.

"So much" for the structure of

the arms, hands, feet, legs, spine, and face. It's the same, simplest, mathematical law.

Many of the known

patterns and numbers in three dimensional nature can be derived from the geometry of a circle, as it turns out. One

might also go on to say that every major system if human knowledge is based on geometry or number, and that both

fields may in turn be derived from the structure of a circle. The above example is about the phi ratio, and the

fibbonacci numbers, which arise in bisecting a circle, for example.

It becomes simple to see once you study it.

This is obviously the same circle that would be the dominant geometry of any planet, star, or galaxy. The ratio of

the size of the earth to the moon, as well as their orbits, all can be derived from the circle in a straightforward

manner. Here's a brief intro to some of that, the first entry that popped up on Google:



http://www.geomancy.org/sacred-geome...oon/index.html

Again, the most rational conclusion

is that the fundamental, substantive patterns of nature are probably the same everywhere. This stuff should be

taught to kids everywhere, IMHO, it's so basic to understanding nature on a large scale, and simple for kids to

understand.

Obviously you're going to have the geometry of the tube as creatures consume and excrete, and

your'e going to have some sort of leg, at least two for mobile creatures, to be precise, to counteract the pull of

gravity, which is going to be the same. You're going to need, at a precise, efficient minimum; two eyes because of

horizons on every planet, and two ears as well, given the same three dimensions.

I mean, just using common

sense without the huge findings of natural math or geometry would get you pretty far down the road, and we haven't

even scratched the surface of the discussion here.

Obviously, you could have creatures look like earthworms,

but those creatures would do certain things well, whereas once you start talking about maximally sentinent,

industrious, communicative, "dextrous", productive, contemplative, dominant, reproducing creatures; you have

introduced lots of constraints, to borrow an engineering term. The laws of nature start to narrow things down to

certain general possibilities.
What you end up with, I'd predict, is something very close to human, if you're

talking about some creature sharing so many global characteristics with ourselves.

So to me, I'd actually be

shocked if life on other planets similar to ours in habitability differed all that much. It seems most probable that

the "laws of nature", broadly speaking, would apply elsewhere. The elements necessary for life are certainly going

to be the same, as well.

If you get even more fundamental in terms of matter that would be the same everywhere;

you find that the same patterns inherent in the structures of all the fundamental molecules (bonding patterns,

crystal lattices, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, are some places to look. You find regular polygons, which all derive

neatly and elegantly from intersected circles) are also the same patterns found in the rest of nature, including in

humans and other mammals. The number five, as applied to our limbs, head, feet and toes, is also repeated lots of

comparable places.

The circle is the fundamental law of three dimensional nature, as far as we know currently.

Almost everything fits, in a fairly strightforward manner. The law of natural selection undoubtedly interacts with

the patterns of the circle over time. Natural selection is extremely useful in biology, admittedly.

But it is

not compelling to consider natural selection as most fundamental, when nature is seemingly everywhere already shaped

by a unified pattern.

Being somewhat of a statistician, I view randomness as the noise of the universe. The

point is that, like noise, randomness depends on a cognizant being unable to "hear" it sensibly. Much of the

universe, indeed most of it, is incomprehensible noise. Anything you can know is a drop in the bucket.

But even

randomness in statistics, which is as much a science of randomness as anything, is not entirely without pattern (The

most common example here is the "bell curve", which I'd speculate can be derived from the calculus of a bisected

circle, not having read up on it yet. The point here is that even the structure of randomness in nature itself comes

from the circle. The book, On Growth and Form, I believe, addresses this bell curve issue directly:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us).

Randomness, chance, error variance, or noise is seen

fundamentally as a problem to be solved or more realistically, reduced over time.

Even the unknown exhibits

some comprehensible patterns. But don't make me go Donald Rumsfeld on everybody's ass and bring up unknown

unknowns!

The same can be said, I think, for quantum physics, another area of science where randomness

figures prominently.

One man's noise is another's music. (The mathematical laws of sound, incidentally, also

can be derived from the circle, as can the structure of the ear that hears it.) Alternately, tweak your dial and the

static becomes an NPR program, full of information. (OK, maybe not NPR! )

That doesn't mean I "believe" in

UFO's. I actually think of them as unlikely for various reasons, but no more than "unlikely", and certainly

not an unreasonable possibility. Like most, I'm just highly uncertain about them, and am waiting for much more

proof. They're slippery critters that defy observation pretty well.

If they exist, they might even come from

or through different "dimensions," or might be a different sort of matter. Some heavy stuff to wrap your brain

around. The issues of human psychology are pretty crazy to sort through as well. Should they be proved to exist

tomorrow, however, I wouldn't be shocked.

[belgareth]

Interesting post, Doc. I disagree with you on several points (There’s news! ) but

understand what you are saying. Fractals are a good example of nature repeating itself but they are utterly

irrelevant to the topic. As a statistician you know what a small sample one planet is for making any kind of

sweeping statements about how a creature from another planet might look. Even though our genetics only differ a few

percent from the lobster, the octopus, the cockroach and the sperm whale, all are distinctly different creatures

despite having evolved in very similar environments. It is true enough that all the ones I mentioned have two eyes

but we can find innumerable exceptions to that rule; the same applies to ears or even breathing apparatus. Even with

the two eyes, they are placed differently depending on the needs of the creature. Each is the result of a long list

of genetic accidents that in some way enhanced survivability thus was retained.

Earth and earthlike planets are in no way the majority and even on Earth we have found huge diversity,

even to the point that some creatures obtain energy from volcanic matter ejected from vents miles below the surface

of the ocean and who do not use respiration. It demonstrates the fallacy in the statement ‘Life as we know

it’. Life seems to be rather persistent and many scientists believe that some viruses have fallen to earth

from space. If that happens here you can be certain that it happens in all sorts of other environments. Why

wouldn’t life develop on utterly un-earthlike planets as a result of different chemical processes? The

building blocks of life as we know it certainly are abundant in space, why not for life as we don’t understand

it yet? The universe is a very big place. You can state that something has only a one in ten billion chance of

happening, but in a universe as big is this one truly is, wouldn’t that almost make it a certainty that the

one in ten billion event has happened repeatedly?

Let’s try

creating a new environment as a thought experiment. It will be a larger planet than ours, with double the gravity.

It will be tied to a twin and they orbit around their star and each other. Due to the constant flux created by the

two gravity wells the planets have remained very active volcanically. The atmosphere is full of sulfides and is very

murky, as are the seas and there is only a small amount of free oxygen. Both air and water are extremely acidic.

Their star is a massive blue one emitting huge levels of radiation, much in the x-ray, and microwave ranges reaches

the surface but due to the thick air very little light does. The seas are even darker.

Since the primary energy source is x-ray and microwave, the first organisms developing in the seas

learned to take their energy from that form. Later other, more complex organisms developed that over time created a

long food chain but due to the lack of light they never developed eyes. However, they developed other sensors that

used other forms of energy. They learned to use sound to locate their prey instead of light.



Unlike the earth, in part due to the higher gravity, fewer mountains formed and the

land not regularly inundated by lava remained wet and marshy. What plants grew in these marshes were low and the

prey hid amongst the plants and rocks so our higher life forms developed multiple, long, dexterous tentacles that

enable them to reach around rocks and plants to pursue prey. Pursuit of prey also brought these creatures into

shallower water where they were easier to corner. These creatures looked a lot like a twelve legged octopus but the

high radiation caused it to grow a hard carapace over the brain as they began to spend more time in shallow water

then started venturing onto land. The higher gravity forced it to grow more powerful limbs. The mouth, as it were,

developed in the segment below the four front tentacles with the 'colon' only a few centemeters below

that.

This one higher life form was very successful as a hunter

because it only grew huge muscles on the back eight tentacles. The front four became more subtle, the suckers

developing into fantastic manipulators that grew more and more dexterous as time went by. As this creature became

better at manipulating it’s environment it‘s brain began to grow and it’s ability to manipulate

increased with it. Eventually it even developed a language based on high frequency pulses of sound from a special

organ in its carapace. The entire carapace served as a sound receiver giving it a huge range hearing. The still

murky air had no oxygen to speak of and almost no visible light. The creature learned to see in the microwave

spectrum instead.

As millions of years passed this creature

developed a society on a planet that was fortunate enough to never have a major cataclysm like the asteroid that

wiped out our dinosaurs or the super volcanoes that have erupted here from time to time. It was also fortunate

enough to have a nearby planet that inspired them to develop space travel and interplanetary commerce comparatively

early in its technological development.

Admittedly, this is pure

fantasy and is probably as far from reality as are creatures evolving under circumstances close enough to ours to

strongly resemble us. We could spend years arguing the problems of the world I just created but in the end, we just

do not know. Perhaps life developed in space and used energy directly. Or it evolved swimming in the upper

atmosphere of a gas giant?

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for the post, Bel.

I'll study it a bit before trying to reply adequately. In general, I like a lot of your observations, and don't

disagree.

You've given me quite a challenge to integrate all that, and I'd never do such a thing to you!



Part of it I anticipated when talking about earthworms.

About our imagination (thought) experiement: Yes, the

variety of life far exceeds our imagination. That's the seeming randomness you point out so well.

But the

explanatory power of the circle just looks and feels too big to be imagined away. I can't imagine a planet that

supports life that does things comparable and greater than human life -- that wouldn't operate by some of the same

laws. (Here I'm avoiding issues of other dimensions we know nothing about for the sake of discussion) We have all

the natural constraints that make humans human.

Similarly, it also seems most likely that there are some

conditions of physics, chemistry, and planetary geometry (all fields laden with natural geometry at their base) that

are going to have to be at a "critical level" for something comparable to humanity, at least comparable enough to

account for UFO's, to occur.

With lot of room to vary within that, as you correctly point out.

Many of

those conditions we know.

Here the critical levels, as regards plants, humans, chemicals, sound vibrations,

light, and other natural phenomena all turned out in their fine detail to correspond to the simple geometry of the

circle.

An obvious question is, "What are the odds that elsewhere it's shapeless, given that?"

Does that

conflict with anything you think?

I know it's a bit of a stretch to get to the particulars of human beings from

there. But is it really so hard to believe that human function is related in some necessary aspects to human form,

given all that stuff?

I don't find fractals irrelevant at all. Fractal geometry is extremely useful in

depicting nature. Why wouldn't something like it that is so basic to it apply to humans, if it applies to so much

else in nature (plants, for example)? That would be almost like imagining human molecules were not composed of

atoms, in terms of being basic.

So you can draw a perfect circle around a human's maximally outstretched limbs

like DaVinci. You could do it with other animals too, like spiders, but it would look slightly different. In other

animals the circles might be in still different places.

So you can only make a statue look naturally human, as

did the Greeks quite meticulously, by formally incorporating Fibonaccis and other geometry. Might not other

creatures have geometry but in other varieties?

Where I agree with you is about the variety of life.

The

best examples to illustrate your interesting point, I think, without leaving earth, are marine mammals, which are

most like us in characteristics relvant for UFO construction; yet most different from us in form, given that.



But are they really going to build UFOs? If not, why?

Is it not related to their forms (e.g., lack of

opposable thumbs and therefore the specific Fibonacci geometry previously discussed, even though marine mammals have

lots of Fibonacci geometry elsewhere in their "construction"), as different from ours? Is something about it not

irreduceably related to that? Isn't the Fibbonaci sequence that is everywhere in nature basically a fractal? Don't

Fibonacci sequences and fractals both account for the overall structure and shapes of trees, down to a fine level of

detail?

At least it wouldn't shock me to see spaceship constructing life from elsewhere resemble spaceship

constructing life here, since humans are so close to that creature, functionally speaking. They'd have to share an

awful lot that is distinctly human, in terms of function (regardless of percentage of DNA and the like, since there

is no animal here with anwhere near the DNA resemblance to us to do anything near making spacecraft).

If it

weren't for the form inherent in the Fibonacci sequence, hands could not function as they do. The fingers would be

too inefficient to hone in on their detail, as each step going backwards in the Fibonacci sequence allows you to do.

So here function follows form.

I'm not saying it'd be ET scientists in white coats with pocket protectors,

though you gotta love the Gary Larson theory of universal nerddom.

[belgareth]

Sorry to throw so much at you

at one time. That comes from something I was playing with in college and retained an interest in. So, of course,

many of the arguments and ramifications for those arguments have been thought out and argued many times. (Not that I

enjoy debate for debate's sake, or anything ). Add to that the meandering and speculative thoughts of the

so-called exobiologists.

Certainly, all life must live within the constraints of physical laws, there is no

argument there. But I am not even sure life could be confined to biological matter, as we understand it. Much would

be controlled by your definition of life. An example used in the past (By somebody a lot smarter than me. He could

argue this point but I don't have the knowledge) would be a planet covered with certain metal oxide crystals. It

would need to be a remote planet, far from a sun where the crystals could remain cold enough to become

superconductors and electrical potential would flow like water. Could intelligence develop there? Intuitively, I'd

say no. Then my questioning mind would stop me and say "Wait a minute. How do you know that pure random chance

couldn't create patterns that eventually began to think in some manner? After all, biology did it, why not

crystals? Today's computers are no more than a collection of crystals with electrical current running through

them."

I really don't know the constraints, nobody does. The statement "Life as we know it" was brought up

because it has been so badly misused. At one time, life as we know it could not exist at the bottom of the Mariannas

Trench. Later, the bathoscaphe proved otherwise and scientists had to change their meanings. What will happen when

we finally manage to break free of our earthly cradle and visit other worlds? I suspect we will encounter things

more bizarre than we could possibly imagine.

Please take your time replying. Your responses are always worth the

wait. I'll be working most of the day anyway.

[DrSmellThis]

Ah, well first off, I agree

with you, but had considered something like that to be from another dimension. You know, since the giant planet

crystal minds would have to construct ships somehow.

So no argument about the possibilities there.

But I

sort of assumed beings basically from this dimension that are observed in this dimension interacting with it. Is

it far fetched that creatures that construct spacecraft in this same dimension would be similar?

We don't have

to assme that if you don't want to.

If not, I can't think where we disagree. If we do have to assume that,

then I'd have to ask about some of these "extreme condition creatures" that definitely exist: Could they construct

a space shuttle? Why not?

[belgareth]

You know, that crystal mind was

purely imaginary. I never considered what universe it would be in. That would have been a fun argument to bring up.

It was always assumed to be in this universe, one of those one in ten billion chances.

My imaginary planet was

designed in a particular way. There's no chance of fire there but plenty of other energy that could be used to

manipulate matter. The heavier gravity would make space travel or even flight more difficult because it would take

far more energy to escape the gravity well. You wouldn't even know about combustion so developing rocket motors

would be impractical to improbable. Would a creature like that jumpover the whole phase and develop nuclear power or

would they be stuck in an evolutionary cul de sac?

Would such a creature be able to develop space craft? I've

no idea whatsoever. Overall, it's a fun excersize with absolutely no value other than a little mental gymnastics

for entertainment. The whole thing is far outside of my education so I am just playing and realize I don't know a

thing.

[belgareth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200708...<br /> <br />

Ker

Than
SPACE.com staff
SPACE.com
Tue Aug 14, 2007


Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties

normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations

show.

But scientists are

hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult

it is to define life.

Plasma life

The

computer model, detailed in the Aug. 14 issue of the New Journal of Physics, shows what happens to microscopic dust

particles when they are injected into plasma.



Plasma is the fourth state of matter along with solids, liquids and

gases. While unfamiliar to most people, plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe. It's everywhere:

Stars are luminous balls of plasma, and diffuse plasma pervades the space between stars. Plasma forms when gas

becomes so hot that electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei, leaving behind a soup of charged

particles.

Past studies

on Earth have shown that if enough particles are injected into a low-temperature plasma, they will spontaneously

organize into crystal-like structures.



The new computer simulations suggest that in the gravity-free

environment of space, the plasma particles will bead together to form string-like filaments that then twist into

corkscrew shapes. The helical strands resemble DNA and are themselves electrically charged and attracted to one

another.

The

computer-modeled plasma particles can also divide to form two copies of the original structure and even "evolve"

into more stable structures that are better able to survive in the plasma.

"These complex, self-organized plasma structures

exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," said study team

member V.N. Tsytovich of the Russian Academy of Science.



Is it alive?



Nevertheless, Tsytovich's colleague and study team member, Gregor

Morfill of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, is hesitant to call the

plasma particles alive.

"Maybe it's a question of upbringing," Morfill said in a telephone interview. "I would hesitate to call it

life. The reason why we published this paper is not because we wanted to suggest this could evolve into life, but

because we wanted to start the discussion ... once more of what exactly do we mean by

life."

Seth Shostak, a

senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, also was cautious in calling the particles

alive. "The facts are, we still don't have a good definition of what 'life' is," Shostak told

SPACE.com.

Shostak

points out that while most high-school biology textbooks include as requirements for life the ability to metabolize

and reproduce, it's easy to think of things that break these rules. Fire, for example, reproduces and metabolizes,

but most people would not say it is alive; and mules, which are clearly alive, can't

reproduce.

"We still

stumble on what it means to be alive, and that means that these complex molecules are in a never-never land between

the living and the merely reacting," Shostak added.



If the particles were considered alive though, Shostak said, it would

completely overturn another common assumption about life.



"We've always assumed that life was a planetary phenomenon. Only on

planets would you have the liquids thought necessary for the chemistry of life," he said. "So if you could have life

in the hot gases of a star, or in the hot, interstellar gas that suffuses the space between the stars, well, not

only would that be 'life as we don't know it' but it might be the most common type of

life."

[gaf]

Just thought I'd throw this out

there...

A few years ago I worked on an interview with Glenn Dennis at the UFO museum in Roswell , interesting

and regardless of weather you belive or not you can find out more information on him and his experiences here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Dennis
(he was a junior mortician at the time and claims to have

provided caskets for the crashed aliens , although the story he told us was different from the "official" one)