Search For Aliens and SETI

First of all it was a 2 hour video.... I watched approx 30 minutes, and the man's demeanor and language was poor to say the least. If he has facts to present he's not doing himself any favors by presenting it in such a slipshod manner.
If you wish to summarize his valid points (assuming he has any) I would be glad to address them with you.
:smile:

First of all, this was an open live stream discussion about SETI's Arecibo observatory collapsing and not a dissertation about evidence for UFOs or ETS, I found it relevant as to Hal's post in connection to your original. During this discussion several (I found) intriguing points were made, as I listed some of them, as points of discussion, which you ignored as not even points made.

"Slipshod manner" that's how some people talk, raw and authentic, not scripted polished papers. The manner is actually irrelevant and to dismiss anything he might say or provide due to the nature is wrong and could miss some gold nuggets.

No I don't wish to summarize valid points, because I already made some here. Since you have nothing of value to say on this particular video, then I'm moving on.
 
Don't fool yourself. The doc can take both you and I to school in these subjects :)

Jennifer Lawrence Reaction GIF
 
First of all, this was an open live stream discussion about SETI's Arecibo observatory collapsing and not a dissertation about evidence for UFOs or ETS, I found it relevant as to Hal's post in connection to your original. During this discussion several (I found) intriguing points were made, as I listed some of them, as points of discussion, which you ignored as not even points made.

"Slipshod manner" that's how some people talk, raw and authentic, not scripted polished papers. The manner is actually irrelevant and to dismiss anything he might say or provide due to the nature is wrong and could miss some gold nuggets.

No I don't wish to summarize valid points, because I already made some here. Since you have nothing of value to say on this particular video, then I'm moving on.
And I think you should move on.....
 
"At the heart of the research is also an attempt to step away from some of the human-centric biases that tend to plague speculations about alien others. “It’s very difficult to imagine extraterrestrial communication without our anthropomorphic way of thinking,” Funes says. “We need to make an effort to exit from ourselves.”

Kopparapu concurs with this assessment. “Unexpected discoveries come from unexpected sources,” he says. “In our common-knowledge thinking, we are in a box. It is hard for us to accept that there could be something else outside it.”

 
..and can back up many of his claims with own UFO hunting footage (to some degree)..

Yeah, what about that.

Many people spend many hours hanging around places where ufo are reportedly seen. But come away with nothing.
Yet others come back with pictures of objects. How does that work.

Let me tell you a short story. It's true.

A long time ago I used to investigate ufo reports in my area.

One case was from a woman who claimed to have watched this object rise from the valley in front of her house and then drift off over the horizon.

The thing is, I live on the opposite side of the valley from her; I can see her house. And on that day, at that time, I was sitting outside facing her side of the valley enjoying an iced tea.

And there was no ufo. I would have seen it. Probably so would some of the many people who were driving along the road at the other side of her house.

But she was quite adamant it happened.

That's probably a common case of people misidentifying something yet being convinced to themselves it happened.

Here's the story of this channel owner's UFO encounter - he had several first hand accounts (no aliens, or he doesn't claim to know who piloted them) -just the craft.

While listening to his detailed encounter(s), I was thinking that maybe he had been under the influence of some drugs, which he has spoken of as using at various times. I emailed him about that some of these particular drugs he mentions have a history of producing hallucinations and could explain his UFO encounters.

His reply, which was a very valid one that debunked this argument, was that several family members had come out and seen this themselves, (besides that he wasn't using anything during this period of encounters). But the fact that multiple accounts were of the same phenomenon, this creates a lot of credibility. The issue is of (what it is they actually saw is another question).

The other aspect of recording the event, which he even had night cameras set up at the time of this. His explanation is that when such an encounter occurs, that all that goes out the window. It's easy to say

Now, that's just his initial major encounters, he's documented numerous live stream recordings of various phenomenon and clear triangular crafts, many other times later on, and documented. But these most profound ones he says he was too captivated to go back get the camera or something to that effect, instead he called others to come and see themselves, which they did. So, for me the totality of his experiences, is very persuasive and I believe he had these UFO encounters.

Now with SETI, one other point to add to the three I mentioned for discussion, is that (he says in the video) observatory that crashed, was so awkwardly and dangerously put into place because it's so hard to position and often it can't even get the direction of something, or very difficult to.

An alternative to this way is a network of astronomers and UFO hunters around the world who can communicate their findings of UFO phenomena or anything unusual in space, in a network, I think there is such a network but I don't remember the name. I live in close proximity to NYC so I don't have any optimal conditions to make observations, but many do.
 
Area201,

One of the problems is that one tends to get people saying 'there are many witnesses' to an event. But never the individual reports from these people. So there is no way of knowing if they exist or are just an artifact put out to make the thing look more credible. If someone says 'there was ten reports', then I want to see all ten. That way I can weight up the credibility, and maybe form some idea of what was seen.

The idea of some kind of reporting network has been going around for years. I suggested such a thing a longtime ago, and probably MUFON is about as close as we are liable to get. But again, that is a 'hub' type system. People send them reports, they decide what to share.

In a system where someone sees, say, a dark triangle flying overhead and reports it immediately to others so they can go outside and look for it, there is a really major problem, people tell lies.

The web is full of jokers. Those who get their kick out of mischief. So the odds in favour of getting a joker in the pack who is wetting him/her self while folks are running around trying to find some object are pretty high.

A few instances of this and the whole thing collapses.

The more official network idea has the obvious snag; they are not going to tell anyone if they do see something.

Which is where we are at the moment.
 
Area201,

One of the problems is that one tends to get people saying 'there are many witnesses' to an event. But never the individual reports from these people. So there is no way of knowing if they exist or are just an artifact put out to make the thing look more credible. If someone says 'there was ten reports', then I want to see all ten. That way I can weight up the credibility, and maybe form some idea of what was seen.

The idea of some kind of reporting network has been going around for years. I suggested such a thing a longtime ago, and probably MUFON is about as close as we are liable to get. But again, that is a 'hub' type system. People send them reports, they decide what to share.

In a system where someone sees, say, a dark triangle flying overhead and reports it immediately to others so they can go outside and look for it, there is a really major problem, people tell lies.

The web is full of jokers. Those who get their kick out of mischief. So the odds in favour of getting a joker in the pack who is wetting him/her self while folks are running around trying to find some object are pretty high.

A few instances of this and the whole thing collapses.

The more official network idea has the obvious snag; they are not going to tell anyone if they do see something.

Which is where we are at the moment.

HAL

I agree with most of this. Some of the aspects in this particular case (UFO Proof) which also adds more layers is that those people who witnessed the same UFO event, while not officially reporting it to any organized network, have come out in public that they seen the same thing he was seeing (his sister is one).

Now we can say they are making this up for whatever reason, or just misidentified something, which is possible, but first point here we have multiple people who claim on (public record) of seeing the same UFO phenomenon. Second, I myself watched a live stream one of his "ufo hunting" episodes, and in several of those live streams saw UFOs, including what appear to be Triangular (TR-3s). This was when he was in the Washington State region, a hotspot for such activity. Now that he moved to California, it's been much less from what I gather following the channel.

However, this last one could not have been hoaxed (whatever it was we were seeing and recording). I'd have to email him to get the exact video(s) to match this, because I don't remember offhand, he's done so many. The main point here, is that I myself am a witness to the event, unless (to play skeptic) he staged the whole thing somehow, which to me seems highly unlikely and would be very difficult to do during a live recording. So those are some factors to consider. He's very rogue, and unofficial, so he didn't report this to MUFON or similar (to my knowledge), but posting it online himself, bypassing some of the issues you brought up.

I tend to pride myself at spotting fakes, and I don't see that in him at all, the opposite really. That's actually his mission to bring credibitliy to UFOs not a gimmick type of approach to get attention and/or make profit off. I think he's an unusual case though. If I find the videos I mentioned I'll bring it up here to back up.
 
Cool breakdown of searching alien civilizations in consideration of Carl Sagan's argument for different rates of development.
 
I read the first few paragraphs and it looks very interesting...and is related to the post I made about Hoffman and his ideas on the nature of reality. It touches on the philosophy of science and empirical approach vs more esoteric or speculative ones.
Are some scientists going too far in their ideas and losing sight of hard science? What do we mean by science and physics?
Will certainly read the whole piece later today.
 
I read the first few paragraphs and it looks very interesting...and is related to the post I made about Hoffman and his ideas on the nature of reality. It touches on the philosophy of science and empirical approach vs more esoteric or speculative ones.
Are some scientists going too far in their ideas and losing sight of hard science? What do we mean by science and physics?
Will certainly read the whole piece later today.
It does seem to support the idea I have that theoretical physicists are way past the point where they can prove by experimentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Area201
Two good pieces on Oumuamua the unknown object seen going through our solar system a few months back.
Dr Loeb of Harvard thinks it could have ben an alien probe. A scientist who's taking a controversial stance among fellow astrophysicists.
this 2nd piece is longer
 
A shorter talk by Dr Webb.....worth watching.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A shorter talk by Dr Webb.....worth watching.

Like most academics I have known a lot of words about not much. Like the crazy believer in everything he has constructed a reality around his ideas.
A very biased and limited viewpoint in my opinion.
Interesting but that's about it.