We are not alone

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:24 am

Themis;1103047 wrote:

That is soooo cool, where can I get one of those?

Could we be so arrogant to really think that with all of those stars and planets out there, that we are the only planet that has life?

Of course there is life out there somewhere in some format.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:30 am

I'm with Jimbo on this if were here on Earth there is life else where in the Universe. Pretty simple for me to grasp, and for most I would imagine. As always our governments don't give the common person enough credit for having the understanding of this as it pretty simple to figure out. If there is life form on a Planet, there are other life forms on other Planets. :-6

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:34 am

Always amazes me that we are meant to believe things that happened thousands of years ago and at the end of the day some can never be proved and yet some rubbish off the thought of life out there ......I know which I prefer to believe and IMO is alot more believeable thats for sure.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:44 am

Since we are talking abstract.

Maybe it is not extra-terrestrial, maybe millions of years ago when the earth was hot it and Greenland was tropical and the dinosaurs roamed the world, maybe it was because the sun was hotter, maybe humans were living on Mars.

Maybe when the sun cooled a bit causing the earth to cool (and subsequently Mars), maybe man left their dying planet and came to earth.

It would explain the sudden appearance of humans on this planet. :yh_alien

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:52 am

Themis;1103147 wrote: On May 8th, 2001, a press conference was held in New York City to announce the discovery of the possibility that an ancient civilization once existed on planet Mars. The press conference featured Tom Van Flandern, a former Chief Astronomer for the United States Naval Observatory, Brian O'Leary, a former Apollo scientist-astronaut trained for America's first manned mission to Mars, and Michael C. Luckman, director of the New York Center for UFO Research. They describe a new human-like face, strange tunnels, pyramids and signs of current vegetation on Mars from among the 65,000 released NASA/JPL photographs taken by the Mars Global Surveyor.

Themis, as usual, a great topic and well put.

My own theory has been not so much 'is there life on mars' but 'was there life on Mars?'

I believe that it's possible that mars was exactly the same as earth with an advanced specie's i.e. human billions of years before man evolved here. They simply did what we are doing now. Destroying the planet which eventually led to total annihilation of everything leavibg only rock.

However, your video's are very interesting and i shall look at them again when i've finished moulding the club that i will be hitting Jimbo with.

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:15 pm

Since there are billions of galaxies each with billions of stars the odds of us being alone must be billions against.

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View of the Universe Unveils Bewildering Galaxies across Billions of Years (01/15/1996) - Introduction

Hubble deep field view of a very very small section of the sky. It's not the aliens are out there it's the why would they bother coming here. After all we are on the edge of our own galaxy orbiting a very ordinary star.

On a side note why are we assumed to be the only intelligent life that ever evolved here on earth? Watched a show a while back about what would happen if people disappeared one day. Seems that after around 100,000 years almost everything we have ever built would be gone. Not just hard to find but you would never be able to see anything had ever been here. So why not have other intelligence millions of years ago, all evidence would be long long gone. We could just be the latest of a string of civilizations that evolved on Earth.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:37 pm

The question is not whether other life exists in the universe but whether it is possible that we would ever meet it - either face to face or through long distance communications.

Given a (near) infinite universe with the known potential for life then we can reasonably expect that we are not alone. Given the size of the universe and the limits on travel and communication is is not unreasonable to believe that we will never meet.

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:21 am

Bryn Mawr;1103712 wrote: The question is not whether other life exists in the universe but whether it is possible that we would ever meet it - either face to face or through long distance communications.

Given a (near) infinite universe with the known potential for life then we can reasonably expect that we are not alone. Given the size of the universe and the limits on travel and communication is is not unreasonable to believe that we will never meet.

There is also that after 3-5 light years all radio and tv signals would fade into the background radiation anyway so nobody else would know we were here to talk with. :-3

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:47 am

Themis;1104096 wrote: Is Edgar Mitchell credible? why would he say this?

Yes, he is credible but without seeing his evidence I cannot comment on his claim.

From where I am sitting I can only say that it is probable that other life exists but unlikely that we will meet them in my lifetime.

If you have evidence of current visitations then present it and we can discuss it but I've seen nothing to date that convinces me that ET has landed.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:36 am

Themis;1104220 wrote: This is what I will try and do, but I myself have a difficult time with evidence, I tend to search for credible sources like Edgar Mitchell, there is not much footage of Aliens knocking at our door but many credible witnesses although I will do my best.

There are several accounts of the Appolo astronauts seeing "UFOs" whilst in flight which might be the source of his comments but the sightings were too vague to be conclusive as no alternative explanations were followed up and investigated.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:17 am

Themis;1103047 wrote:

Good morning Themis (7:15 am here). Can you tell me why this video was removed?

Good thread you have going here.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:27 am

I remembered reading something about this so looked it up. I believe national geographic to be credible. It's all very thought provoking.

Meteorites Brought DNA "Ancestors" to Earth, Study Says

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:35 am

Themis;1103034 wrote: At the begining of 2010 I believe in my heart that Mankind will accept the fact that intelligent life exist in our universe and indeed our galaxy,

this thread is to catalog data on the subject..

I am not interested in flying saucers on string or abductions, my interest in this subject is only to find what I deem to be credible, now you may disagree so feel free to add your input.

I will begin with Mars.

more will follow......

Hi Themis. This is a really strange video. All I can think of is that the would be astronomer has a bluish filter on the lens. And of course Mars isn't as red as the NASA images either. But Mars is a salmon/reddish color and can be seen from earth with the naked eye. It's for this reason that Mars, with it's reddish tint (the color of blood) was called the war god by the ancient Romans. I noticed also that there is quite the 'blur' on the would be astronomers pics. Also at no time are the images shown side by side facing the same way and in the same position and being as blurry as some of them are it's even difficult to tell if it's really Mars at all. The fact that both pics have polar caps mean little.

If you know the photographer personally and can verify that he/she did not have a filtered lens and that it really is Mars, well then, you have just thrown ancient Roman history in the garbage along with the ancient astronomers,

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:19 am

Boring down into the polar caps, some bores go down to cores that access dust particles from millions of years ago....scientists have found that space dust dating back millions of years carries the basics of dna in amino acids.

Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:49 pm

oscar;1116990 wrote: Boring down into the polar caps, some bores go down to cores that access dust particles from millions of years ago....scientists have found that space dust dating back millions of years carries the basics of dna in amino acids.

Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

Well as you know amino acids are the building blocks of life. It would be really interesting to know what intelligent life on other planets looks like, DNA can scramble any which way and so any intelligent life out there could look like anything.

I really don't think that any intelligent life would come here though. They might peek in and when they seen what was going on would probably make a run for it in the other direction. Although humans on this planet have developed some technology for the most part humanity it is still really barbaric.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:07 pm

Martians dont scare me.

Theyre probably just amoebas or parameciums that act all oooh were taking over Earth.

We can kick amoebas's asses.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:42 am

CARLA;1103103 wrote: I'm with Jimbo on this if were here on Earth there is life else where in the Universe. Pretty simple for me to grasp, and for most I would imagine. As always our governments don't give the common person enough credit for having the understanding of this as it pretty simple to figure out. If there is life form on a Planet, there are other life forms on other Planets. :-6

There's no logic in what you say Carla.

There are two possibilities which cover all eventualities. Either life will only emerge once in the universe and we're it, or life will emerge many times in the universe and we're one form.

If life will only ever emerge once then where else but on this planet would you expect to find it? The definition of "this planet" is where it emerged. If it had emerged elsewhere then elsewhere would be called "this planet". What's special isn't the place, it's that observations are being made on it.

We have no incontrovertible evidence of other forms, at best we have interpretations.

In any serious universe with many emergent life forms it is vanishingly improbable that we're the most advanced so far out of all of them. In any serious universe in which more advanced life forms have already emerged many times it's arguably improbable that we'd have no incontrovertible evidence by this point. The lack of that incontrovertible evidence seems at least an indicator that we're all there is or ever will be. Obviously believers can play what-if and why-if until the cows come home but they have to admit a lack of incontrovertibility to any of their interpretations.

"At the beginning of 2010 I believe in my heart" sums up the total unreality of belief in a nutshell.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:12 am

oscar;1116990 wrote: Boring down into the polar caps, some bores go down to cores that access dust particles from millions of years ago....scientists have found that space dust dating back millions of years carries the basics of dna in amino acids.

Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

That article gives no support at all to your text. I find your text unlikely in every respect

"some bores go down to cores that access dust particles from millions of years ago"? I think not.

"scientists have found that space dust dating back millions of years carries the basics of dna in amino acids"? What has "space dust" to do with anything out of a polar bore, millions of years old or not?

The article makes it quite clear that the amino acids created in space-like conditions are all products of non-life chemistry and not of life processes.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:11 am

Themis,

I've always believed in life in outer space...just don't think we've met it yet. Maybe they're developing just like us.

I love astronomy and listen to a coasttocoastam.com every night...

COAST TO COAST AM WITH GEORGE NOORY lovely show....

Have you watched the dvd "Starman?" lovely film.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:56 am

Themis;1117382 wrote: I've forever believed in some form of life in our universe what is unreal about that?

I've forever believed in water on Mars...

To say don't believe in something because believing is in it's context unreal is just complete nonsense..

I'm sorry spot but even truth as a leap of faith to it.

There's an absolute fundamental difference between "We are not alone" and "We cannot yet say with certainty whether we are alone or not". The one is fraudulent, the other is respectable.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:45 am

Themis;1117397 wrote: Lol

heaven forbid

Ancient Babylonians called Mars Nergal, the star of death, and on its day (Tuesday) performed ceremonies to ward off this planetâ€™s hostile influences.

Ancient Egyptians called Mars Har Decher, the Red One,

The Greeks named it Ares after their god of war,

During this time of myths and Gods, Mars was known as the God of War. The Romans worshipped Mars and even provided sacrifices, they would seek the guidance of Mars especially in times of war.

The reason for the red color is that the soil is composed of iron oxide, or what we commonly call rust, add this to the dust storms and you have a red planet, I believe the argument is that when the storms settle the atmosphere is blue, to seek verification of the blue atmosphere and blue sky I agree is important, it's so easy to manipulate pictures and everything must be taken into consideration, some also suggest picture manipulation by Nasa themselves.

Are our skies are blue because of the Ozone layer?

Does this mean if Mars has blue skies it has an Ozone layer as well?

Does an Ozone mean OXYGEN?

I'm still having a good look at these pictures but still no solid proof.

Good morning hun.

By stating that; Ancient Egyptians called Mars Har Decher, the Red One, then obviously we agree that it is red regardless of any touch-ups anyone does to the images. Taking a real good look at the 2 images on the video while they are still I would take a very serious guess that they are 2 different planets or at the least very 'touched up'. Take a second look at the tilt of the planets and the polar caps at the tops. They are relatively the same except for the fact that one shows white and the other an empty hole type spot. Now if the white spot is ice or snow (whatever) where did it disappear to in the other red image? Even if it was the opposite pole it would still look whitish. Now look straight down to the middle bulge, there is a a land mass that resembles a ring of mountains, that could also be a large crater, but it is not in the red image. We can't go by much else because the rest could be dust clouds. I find it difficult to believe, though it's not impossible, that an average everyday astronomer would have a telescope as strong as NASA to be able to pick up all the little details. And there is far more detail in the blue image than in the red one.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:59 am

spot;1117345 wrote: That article gives no support at all to your text. I find your text unlikely in every respect

"some bores go down to cores that access dust particles from millions of years ago"? I think not.

"scientists have found that space dust dating back millions of years carries the basics of dna in amino acids"? What has "space dust" to do with anything out of a polar bore, millions of years old or not?

The article makes it quite clear that the amino acids created in space-like conditions are all products of non-life chemistry and not of life processes.

If amino acids are the building blocks of life and they have been found in space dust, then, then have come from some-where.

Amber Sun · Post by **Amber Sun** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:22 am

I think it is absurd to say that there is no intelligent life in the universe. We know that there is not much for intelligence in our little space in the this solar system, but we are just one little speck when we consider the entire milky way. I believe that yes, there is life out there, some far more advanced than we can imagine and some life just starting.

I'm not inclined to believe everything that I read or hear, LOL, I'm not inclined to believe all that I see. But there are some things that we must accept on 'faith' alone. As an example NASA scientists tell us that there is water in other places in our galaxy. I haven't seen this water, nor the carbon molecules that they say exist. I can't even say for sure that the earth is round because I haven't been up in space to be able to look at the earth and verify it. This is what I mean by accepting some things on 'faith' alone. However to not accept these things on faith would put us back into the dark ages and the flat earth theory and the sun traveling around the earth instead of the other way around.

So what exactly is needed for life? Well water for sure and carbon based molecules. Science tells us that both these exist in space. With both of these we then have life out there. I do have some problem believing that they found a 'sugar' molecule that we are told about for a simple reason. We all know that a molecule is very, very tiny. Imagine one in the palm of your hand right now, now imagine finding it looking through a telescope and locating it somewhere in the milky way. That would have to be one heck of a large molecule I think. But they have found DNA and the amino acids that make up DNA right here on this planet in and on in-coming astroids/comets. No, I haven't seen this DNA in a comet, but it sounds more plausible than locating a molecule in space.

So if we are to believe in science at all then we must also believe that there is other life in the universe. LOL, even if we don't believe in science but instead believe in religious concepts then we must still believe that life exists out there. I suppose not believing in either might make an interesting thread, although a short one. Whether or not any of that 'other life' is paying us visits etc., is something that I can only guess on and has many ramifications on it's own. That also might make an interesting thread because there is not one case of supposed 'contact' that isn't perforated with so many holes as to be absurd. That also would make an interesting thread. Someone can write up a 'case' and then we can all pull it apart and find that it points straight to our gov'ts. Why would our gov'ts want us to believe that ETs are here? Very interesting. Why would they and yet at the same time say no there isn't? These are all interesting topics. But to deny existence other than ourselves in this universe puts us back into the dark-ages where the belief was that god created mankind in his image because he was lonely. Anyone believing this is on one heck of an ego trip I would say.

Carl Sagan estimated thousands of planets out there with life on them, and I don't believe he meant a bacterium or any one-celled organism. I, for one, respect the many, many years that he and others like him poured into their work of discovery. A person doesn't spend a lifetime in a particular field without learning something. When Sagan talked and looked towards the sky the longing in his eyes was clear to see. The yearning for discovery of that 'life' that he knew he would probably never see. It is on people like him that I base my faith about other life existing in this universe.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:46 pm

oscar;1117487 wrote: If amino acids are the building blocks of life and they have been found in space dust, then, then have come from some-where.

You know, it actually says in the article you quoted exactly what chemical processes formed them in space. There are chemical processes which forrm them naturally on earth as well.The discovery of glycine supports recent lab-based simulations of deep space, which show that ices containing simple organic matter could form. When researchers bathe those ices in ultraviolet light, amino acids are created.

Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist

As for NASA doctoring photos, doctoring is an extreme word and the one time it happened in a very public way it happened in the other direction. The entire space program commonly emphasises specific spectral portions in pictures to pick out specific features, they're just not natural-light photos when they do that. The first photos back from one of the landers in the early 90s was printed that way and it gave the atmosphere the appearance of a disturbingly Earth-like blue sky. It caused quite a furore.