any one listen to the National Geographic special on UFO's?

[Duppers]

just asking.

(But if you're so closed minded that you're going to tell me I've wasted my time, then I'll respond in kind.)

[snot]

1. no. more info?

[Duppers]

10. interesting program

but too long to go into. That's my excuse for now since I'm too tired to type. ;)

I just wanted to read opinions about that broadcast here that are not negative as hell. That's all.

Try these:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/ufos-seei...

A similar broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgbEb_HfYA4


:hi:

[JanusAscending]

2. Sorry...but I don't get the Nat. Geographic Channel

on my cable. I did see one about UFO'S on the History channel a couple of Sundays ago. I wonder if they were the same, or similar? Tell us about the one you saw, anything especially new? I did see "Close Encounters" for the umpteenth time today on TCM channel!! My favorite movie of all time!!!:shrug:

[Duppers]

8. similar

the history channel has run several different ones, some with up-dated, very interesting video.

Tonight's broadcast was a re-run of a special that ABC's Peter Jennings did a couple of yrs before he died. I don't remember watching it all before and thought it was interesting.

I thought I'd just ask others' opinions of it.

[enlightenment]

3. No chance that they're currently headed for

Washington DC with their lasers set to vaporise, is there?


*seriously, no I didn't watch, but I'm sure it was interesting.*

[Speck Tater]

4. People who see UFO's are mentally deficient.

Or so I thought until I saw one!

[Gato Moteado]

5. details please

i would have liked to seen it

[Duppers]

11. see up thread

or down thread, please.

Too tired to type more now, sorry.

:hi:

[JanusAscending]

6. Did one of them abduct you???

(just kidding) Where did you go? Aren't you going to fill us in???

[Duppers]

9. sorry about leaving

Nope, didn't abduct me! :rofl:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/ufos-seeing-is-believing-2359/Overview

A similar broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgbEb_HfYA4

[spag68]

7. UFO's

The aliens came here observed us, found us deficient and left.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Exactly. they did not find any signs of intelligent life here..

[Kip Humphrey]

13. UFOs are actually plasma traveling along magnetic lines of the magnetosphere. Plasma interacting

with oxygen produced a solid metallic shimmering sheen. Plasma emissions exist in nature and are often associated with earthquakes, hurricanes, fault lines, and volcanoes. SEE: ball lightening, St. Elmo's fire. UFO mystery solved. You can go back to sleep now.

[frogmarch]

14. Thanks for the tip

I don't believe that ETs have visited Earth, but I like watching UFO-related programs (though I don't know why).

[frogmarch]

15. oops, sorry, I meant to reply to the OP n/t

[JanusAscending]

16. It must feel sooooooooo good,

to be so sure of yourself!! Maybe you can tell that to the ET's when they arrive for one and all to see??? and to come in PEACE to help us keep from destroying the universe!!!! It really does pay to keep an open mind about things you are REALLY NOT SURE about, huh???:rant:

[TZ]

18. Keep waiting.

I think you might have a loong wait..Jesus will come back before that (I'm an atheist).
In the meantime, I suggest you read some Carl Sagan--who really IS an authority in this area despite what rabid UFOers think.
And also..what makes you think any halfway intelligent being would come to this primitive savage place in peace?
Its good to have an open mind..but not open enough that your brain falls out..

[Duppers]

21. t-sue

You know that I'm an atheist too and a major skeptic in general. But I beseech you to watch a few of the specials the History Channel and the Nat'l Geographic Channel have on UFO's. If only to find the flaws and report back to us. Please.

From Wiki:
"Sagan spent very little time researching UFOs ... he thought that little evidence existed to show that the UFO phenomenon represented alien spacecraft and that the motivation for interpreting UFO observations as spacecraft was emotional".<28>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-westrum-27


And from bio sketch:

Sagan was never a field UFO investigator, such as Hynek. Like the late Philip J. Klass, however, if he bothered, Sagan could dismiss the best of cases without ever leaving his chair.
...
He was the rigid conservative, ignoring multitudes of UFO data to mouth the standard propaganda in order to appease the secretkeepers and to reassure the public.

www.ufodata.co.uk/pdf/Carl%20Sagan%20UFOs.pdf


Yes, I know you'll dismiss that last site. All I ask is that you watch a few of these programs. Think of the smug satisfaction you'll have making fun of them ;) Yeah, I'm trying...please don't hit me. :rofl:
:hi:

[TZ]

33. Well I don't dismiss certain things as explainable.....

Certainly there are literal "UFO"s because that means unidentified flying objects..but I think the likely hood of aliens flying around and catching cattle and people for "testing" is a bit far fetched.
There is some interesting stuff out there that to me is better proof of intelligent life elsewhere..like the "wow" signal that Ohio State picked up years ago.
Sagan's views had more to do with actual science than paranoid conspiracy coverups..The odds of someone traveling here are astonishingly small...
Personally I do believe in intelligent life out there..but I think the way we will make contact will be more like radio signals or something like Voyager. When you think of what could be fatal differences with things like bacteria viri, atmosphere..I don't know what species would dare to come here in person as well.
Personally if we ever do encounter anything here..the odds are it will be some kind of robotic device..Now that I could see as an UFO, not a space ship per se.

On edit: some of these shows have also shown interesting points on how certain electrical interactions can cause mysterious lights that look like UFO's as well. If a show is willing to discuss other interpretations of mysterious events and leave the watcher to decide..thats interesting. But most of these UFO shows do not try to bring in other explanations.

[Duppers]

20. yay for open minds

;)

[Duppers]

19. Love it. !

:rofl:

[Phoonzang]

17. It was a hack job.

Like most UFO shows. They always have the same 4 smirking debunkers on with the same lame blanket dismissals. I'm not going to get worked up about it though. I think most UFO sightings are hoaxes, misidentifications, etc., but I also think some of them are probably alien craft. It's too easy for people to dismiss the solid cases because of the crappy ones though. No one seems interested in pursuing the good ones besides UFO researchers (who have zero cred in the scientific community) so there's no point worrying about it.

[Duppers]

22. agreed.

thanks.

:hi:

[Orsino]

23. It's hard to have any other kind of UFO show.

Credible-sounding witnesses with fantastic stories, and nothing more than blurry photos, at best, as corroborative evidence.

This show, however, did feature credible debunking--or mundane explanations for sightings. I haven't seen all of it, but I'm enjoying it so far.

[edhopper]

24. Tell us which are the "solid cases",

specifically. Which ones show good evidence for alien visitation?
Have you read anything by Phillip Klass? In his books, Klass took the UFO believers best cases and debunked them.

[Phoonzang]

28. When listing the best UFO cases I have several criteria.

I don't list cases that have to do with one witness's testimony, alien abduction, blurry photos, or cases that involve people seeing lights in the sky (like that Phoenix sighting). I prefer pilot and military sightings, multiple witnesses and corroboration with things like radar. Off the top of my head I can think of:

1.)The Rendlesham Forest Incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_Incident

2.)Tehran UFO Incident (My favorite case and the skeptical explanation is hilarious)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

2.)Belgian Triangle Wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

3.)Japan Airline Flight 1628 Sighting
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm

4.)Cash-Landrum case (probably not aliens) :)
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case86.htm

5.)America West Airlines Flight 564 Sighting
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case86.htm

6.)Illinois Triangle Sighting
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case277.htm


I know Phil Klass well (not personally). I've been interested in the UFO phenomenon since 1st grade (I'm 28 now) and I've read many of his books and many books by prominent Ufologists. Hell, I've read pretty much all there is out there on the subject from skeptics and researchers. He debunked many cases, but I wouldn't say he debunked the best out there. Still, he was a step above the current batch of debunkers like Shermer and Joe Nickell, who don't actually bother to study the thing they're ridiculing. These people come out with explanations that are more ridiculous and unbelievable than the idea of aliens visiting us.

I don't understand why people are willing to shut down and accept anything that comes out of these people's mouths. Does the idea of alien visitation scare them that much or seem that ridiculous? Take all the info and come to your own conclusions. Don't rely on "experts" with an agenda (on either side).

[edhopper]

30. I see nothing in these articles

that point to alien visitation. People saw objects they couldn't explain. So?

[Phoonzang]

31. So? Don't you want to know what they are?

Doesn't it spark your curiosity? There is no proof of alien visitation. There is no physical evidence (that I can present at least). A tailpipe is not going to fall of one of these craft and an alien has yet to walk out of one and say “take me to your leader”. What we do have is solid craft displaying characteristics and capabilities decades ago that we don’t even have now. If we did have that kind of technology a long time ago, everything we know of secret weapons and aircraft development tells us that we would have known about it by now. Secret craft (like the F-117 and SR-71) come out into the open as they are replaced by even more advanced technologies.

If these are secret government craft, they would have to belong to an agency beyond the military since the military seems to be puzzled by their presence as well. They would also have been flying these top secret craft over civilians for some unknown purpose for decades. For someone to believe in that kind of convoluted conspiracy (which I’ve heard espoused on DU) while at the same idea laughing at the idea that a FEW of these incidents could be alien craft is hypocritical.

So back the original point…what are they? Something is flying around out there. I’ve taken the evidence available and come to the conclusion that some of these craft could very well be of a non-terrestrial origin.

Hm...that was entirely too much of response for what's likely to be a one sentence dismissal.

[edhopper]

32. I don't accept the premise

that people saw "aircraft". I've seen too many UFO cases where people are positive that they saw some kind of craft turn out to be everything from meteor bolides to glowing beetles to think that any of these are definitively craft.
Yes, I'm curious to what natural, prosaic explanation there is to people imagining they saw craft from another world.

[Duppers]

39. THANK YOU!

Yes, I am suspicious of anyone with any kind of agenda.

Most interesting are the debunkers who have spent years of their lives trying to disapprove any and all UFO phenomena only to become 'believers' (I hate that word).

Thanks so much for that list. I'm bookmarking your post.

Even though I have seen one of the huge UFO (also seen by many others at the same time), I don't do a great deal of research or reading on the subject. Having seen one, you'd think I'd be obsessed. I just try catch all the latest programs and try to stay open-minded.

[wildbilln864]

25. I don't believe ETs are visiting the Earth, however....

I don't know. I also don't believe we're the only intelligent life in this universe, but I don't know.
I've often wondered about the possibility of some form of life evolving on some planet out there possibly beginning millions of years before began here on Earth. What kind of technology would those beings possess with a million or more years head start?
I did watch a UFO program where they had astronauts saying they were real and showed some strange video. Has anyone else seen that program?

One thing I do have in common with Mr. Sagan: He liked to use marijuana. :smoke:

[scubadude]

26. With 400,000.000,000 galaxies in the known universe....

EACH with 400,000,000,000 stars, if life didn't exist wouldn't it be a terrible waste of space?

I have a closed mind about life outside of earth. I am certain it exists. Our race is very young.
We have only had writing and mathematics for a few thousand years. With so little time to think
how can we possibly be sure about anything as complex as the possibilities of our entire universe?

Perhaps we'll know in a few billion years, if we survive ourselves.

Scuba

[Duppers]

27. Thank you!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[edhopper]

29. Your statement has little to do with UFOs

There is a vast difference between life on other Planets and Aliens transversing interstellar space to visit us. There probably is life elsewhere. Probably some we would call intelligent. But that is not an argument that they have come here in space craft to spy on us.

[scubadude]

34. No, you are mistaken, it has everything to do with UFOs

According to the 3 laws:

1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3)Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke posited them in 1962, and I believe they are correct. The third one has the most bearing on our conversation.

What great hubris it is to state anything categorically about a subject as large as the entire universe and it's possibilities. Have an open mind. We are infants...

Scuba

[edhopper]

35. Again,

the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe has nothing to do with evidence that we have been visited. No one is saying it is impossible. It's just highly improbable given that technological civilizations are rare at best we are in the backwater of the Galaxy.
You quote Clarke (which has nothing to do with my argument) I'll quote Sagan

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[scubadude]

36. Fine, you stick with the arguement that we know enough about...

the universe to flatly state that interstellar travel is impossible. If you ignore a few outlayers current theory is on your side. I posit that we do not know enough about it to know one way or the other, and it is hubris to say we do.

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Carl Sagan

Look, all I'm asking is for you to just have the tiniest bit of vision. You know, to just sit back for one minute and look at the big picture. To take a chance on something that just might end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity, for the history… of history.
Carl Sagan

Scuba

[FiveGoodMen]

37. Why don't you find one of these aliens and show them to us.

[scubadude]

41. To you I say "Welcome to Amurika"! nt

[FiveGoodMen]

50. Yes, it really takes an ignorant, bottom-of-the-barrel type to demand evidence

[edhopper]

38. Again,

since you do not grasp what I am saying. The possibility of interstellar travel is not at issue. Whether it exist or could exist says nothing about whether aliens have in fact visited our planet.
Your condensation is palpable.
As long time reader of science fiction and science, I am quite aware of the wonders in the universe. I am also able to tell then apart.

[scubadude]

40. I grasp what you are saying, and reject it. I am not Sagan,

and do not have his ability to convey the wonder he did, but I am doing my best.

You admit there is life out there. You admit that interstellar travel may be possible. At the same time you refuse to admit that it may have happened, that it may be happening right now... This idea is the central core of Sagan's book Contact. Remember the scene where the father is explaining why the aliens just didn't show up and make themselves known. He said, and I will paraphrase loosely, "This is the way it's been done for millions of years".

Remember, we once believed the earth was flat. We once believed that it was impossible to fly, some "primitive" folks still do, and when they see airplanes above them they simply call it magic.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Catholic Priest once at a beer party. Over our beers I asked "Is the Bible the literal word of God and are all possibilities laid out in it?". After a moment he replied "To believe so would be to put a limit on the mind of God, and that I cannot do". That was one of the most profound statements I have ever heard.

I hope this makes sense to you. Give these folks a break. There may be something to it, or maybe not, we may never know.

Scuba

[edhopper]

42. Why should "admit" to something

that I have seen no evidence of being true. Possibility does not mean inevitability. That something is possible has little bearing on whether it actually happened in reality. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

[scubadude]

43. Well, at least you now admit these things are possible.

I have never once said that life visiting earth was inevitable, or has even happened at all. But if millions of civilizations have proceeded us with millions of years of technology and millions of years to use it in to move about the universe, wouldn't it be amazing if they haven't?

It is amazing to me to think how far we have come in only a hundred year. Within the lifetime of a man we have gone from steam engine travel to landing on the moon. It will be interesting to see how far we go in a million years if we survive. I imagine that what we will end up as alien to ourselves as what many folks have claimed to have seen. I imagine those beings will seem Godlike, fully possessing magic, at least to our primitive eyes. Would they even recognize us as their ancestor? Fascinating at least.

Scuba

[backwoodsbob]

44. I for one

welcome our alien overlords and wish to serve them however possible

[edhopper]

45. Could you point out

where I ever said these things were impossible? I said I don't find them probable and they lack any evidence.
It is also improbable that there are "millions of civilizations", the odds would then be much higher that we would have heard some radio artifact from one of them. Possible is not probable. You really don't understand the difference.

[scubadude]

46. With 160,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the known universe

that is a whole lot of room for life and civilizations.

I once asked the head of SETI what the sensitivity level of our detectors are. Specifically I asked "If you were looking for civilizations with a similar emissive pattern to earth now, what is the furthest it could be to detect with your current systems?". His reply was very embarrassing. He answered "3 light years".

So if we use our technology as a guidepost, Seti wouldn't even be able to detect a similar civilization to ours on Alpha Centauri, the closest star...

That of course is assuming that a civilization would use the radio or light spectrum for communication... Perhaps we can't hear them because we don't know how to listen.

scuba

[edhopper]

47. So I'll go back to my

original argument. Whether intelligent, technological life exist elsewhere in the Universe has little barring on the supposition that we have, in fact, been visited by aliens. And given the complete lack of real evidence, I don't find any reason to believe we have.

[scubadude]

48. And I'll go back to mine.... But I'll add a bit of spice at the end.

With 400,000,000 galaxies EACH with 400,000,000,000 stars, if life didn't exist wouldn't it be a terrible waste of space?

I have a closed mind about life outside of earth. I am certain it exists. Our race is very young.
We have only had writing and mathematics for a few thousand years. With so little time to think
how can we possibly be sure about anything as complex as the possibilities of our entire universe?

Perhaps we'll know in a few billion years, if we survive ourselves.

I'll close with this thought, which I believe applies to our conversation.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence... Considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questing, courageous and open mind seems to be essential for narrowing our collective ignorance on the subject."

From Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan (I had the pleasure of visiting the Musée de l'Homme in Paris, to personally see what inspired Sagan to write this amazing book)

Scuba

[edhopper]

49. No you are quite wrong

an atheist says that they see no evidence for the existence of God. I don't know if you understand the distinction?
You are certain about something for which there is zero evidence. That is not science, that is faith. There are compelling reasons to think that life probably exist, but as of yet, no proof. To be certain is to not think critically.

[scubadude]

53. Athiesm doesn't necessarily rely on evidence.

Non-belief seems to be the key to all forms of atheism. Those without belief in God(s) are atheists. Do you understand the distinction? It is the central weakness of your argument.

I'll go at this in a way that you may understand. Didn't the common man rail against the fact that the earth was round? Didn't it take thousands of years to convince even learned people that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around? The evidence was there the whole time, but it took a revolution of technology and thought to "see it". You flatly deny the folks who see evidence of aliens, like an atheist denies the existence of God. Basically you cry "I do not believe!". I state that the subject is an open one, there may be evidence that we do not have the ability to detect or recognize. I use peoples experiences as potential evidence. Not proof, but evidence.

You are correct in one sense. I do have faith. I have faith that there is more to existence than what I see. Do you agree with this? If so then you must be taking it on faith...

Once again this concept is key to understanding the movie Contact, by Carl Sagan.

Cogito ergo sum.

Scuba

[edhopper]

55. ARRGGH!

You make a statement that atheism is due to compelling EVIDENCE against God. I tell you that you are wrong, it's about seeing no evidence to support the existence of God. Then you say atheism is not about evidence at all but something you call "non-belief" Why did you bring up "evidence in the first place if you don't think it's pertanent?
You also still harp on this notion that if something in the past was not accepted and then turned out to be true, anything now not accepted can turn out to be true. There are more such ideas that never turned out to be true.

I still await evidence for alien visitation. I have seen none. I use critical thinking and reason for my judgment, not faith.

[scubadude]

63. Some of my posts are not coming through, cookie issues perhaps.

That is causing my posts to be disjointed.

I brought up the evidence quote by Carl Sagan to use as vehicle to get to the point that it is important to have an open mind, as he did.

I wans't so interested in this part: An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence...

I was more interested in this part, which is salient to our conversation: Considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questing, courageous and open mind seems to be essential for narrowing our collective ignorance on the subject."

Further if you just change it around a bit it comes out like this:

Someone who is certain that UFO's do not exist, is someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of UFO's. I know of no such compelling evidence... Considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questing, courageous and open mind seems to be essential for narrowing our collective ignorance on the subject.

You say you await evidence for alien visitation. You say you have seen none and you use critical thinking and reasoning for you judgment, not faith. I say perhaps you have seen the evidence, but just don't recognize it. I further say that it is very possible that if we were visited or are being visited by aliens they may be a bit coy about it, seeing that whenever a more advanced culture comes in contact with a primitive one the primitive culture is invariably destroyed.

It is obvious that you have faith in your critical thinking. You have faith too, but you are not thinking critically about it. Are you fallible? Is it possible that you have seen evidence for extraterrestrial visitation but have just not recognized it as such? Of course you are fallible, you just haven't seen evidence of that either.

Now I'm just pulling your chain... LOL

At any rate this has been a bit of fun. I am also extremely critical, but as I have aged I have become more humble, but perhaps not humble enough to avoid senseless confrontation...

Scuba

[anigbrowl]

51. With respect, those are aphorisms, not laws

I'm being pernickety here, but generally one reserves the word 'law' for something you can measure objectively. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but taking rules of thumb and calling them laws is a recipe for muddled thinking.

[scubadude]

52. Geez, you sure do take things literally.

These "laws" were from a science fiction writers writings. I quoted him to be ironic. Some of this thread and much of my commentary used another science fiction writer, Carl Sagan, who also wrote some incredible real science books, as it's root. Perhaps I am assuming that the readers are well steeped in both science and science fiction. My bad.

The point is that one must have an open mind and not discount out of hand things he/she cannot explain, other folks experiences included. Sagan even went further, using the scientific and governmental establishment as a source of active resistance to the idea that alien contact ever occurred in the story. That was the point of the movie Contact, written as science fiction by Carl Sagan.

Scuba

[qazplm]

56. "We are infants"

And you know this how?

For all we know, it takes a minimum of 13 billion years to evolve an intelligent species.

We could, for all we know, be one of the first intelligent species in the universe.

First? probably not, but you dont have a universe form on tuesday and get life on thursday.

[Martin Eden]

58. "13 billion years to evolve an intelligent species"

13 billion years may be the time span for human evolution, given the time necessary for our solar system to coalesce, for the earth to become conducive to life, and for the evolutionary process as we understand it. 13 billion years span most of the time between the Big Bang and the present, so your point seems to be that despite the vastness of the universe the opportunity for the evolution of super-intelligent beings capable of interstellar travel lies mostly in the future.

This raises a few questions in my mind.


Is our sun among the oldest stars in our galaxy or in the universe?

If not, could evolution have gotten a much earlier start in millions (or billions) of other solar systems?

Once life begins, does the emergence of intelligent species necessarily take as long as it has here?

Given the incredibly fast progress in technology over the last century, is not not possible -- or probable -- that many intelligent beings with a million years (relative blink of an eye) head start on us have developed technologies that are to us what a personal computer would have been to the founders of Babylon?


Personally, I do not believe nor disbelieve that our planet has been visited by alien craft. But I do not discount the possibility. I am not qualified to say whether it is probable, but if I was a super-intelligent being capable of interstellar travel (and here I anthropomorphize a bit) I would want to explore the universe and learn about the incredible spectrum of life that inhabits it. I would be able to detect at great distances the radio signals emitted by "infants" like us, and check it out.

Of course I am speculating, and perhaps being a little hopeful about the richness of life in our universe. However, I think that approach is perhaps more logical than discounting the possibilities on the basis of lack of evidence. If an interstellar species has indeed visited us, I think they could avoid providing us with proof-positive evidence of their presence if that was their intent.

[scubadude]

59. I would be able to detect at great distances the radio signals emitted by "infants" like us, and ...

check it out....

Martin, this goes directly to the point about the question I asked of the Director of Seti. The technology employed by Seti at the time wasn't sufficient to detect a signal from an earth like civilization further than 3 light years. Alpha Centauri, the closest star, is about 4 light years away. That leaves about 99.9999999999999999% of the rest of the universe beyond the range of detection.

Confounding this is the fact that Seti is looking for signals in the radio band, which to my mind wouldn't be employed by civilizations who had the capacity for interstellar travel.

Scuba

[Martin Eden]

60. "The technology employed by Seti at the time "

Interstellar aliens would of course employ different technology, no doubt much better than ours. If their aim was to detect civilizations like ours, I think it likely they would scan the radio band. What would be the limiting factor to detecting our emissions, other than the relatively short distance our radio signals would have travelled since we first emitted them? I guess the aliens (or their probes) would have to be pretty close (in terms of interstellar distances) to detect our radio signals. However, that would seem to be one logical method to employ. Another would be to direct their search towards systems they deem conducive to support life. We have already begun catching distant glimpses of other solar systems and making judgements about viability.

On one hand the vastness of the universe seems an enormnous obstacle to a successful search. On the other hand that same vastness and length of time exponentially increases the odds that at least a few species in our galaxy have achieved such capabilities and are searching.

The point of your question to SETI was more about us detecting them than the other way around. Absence of evidence gleaned by SETI is by no means evidence of absence, which I think was your point.

[scubadude]

61. Yes, In my post about my question to the SETI director....

I was addressing the lack of evidence for alien life outside of earth. It was for the purpose of showing others that we simply don't have the technology sensitive enough to detect signals even from the closest stars.

I agree that advanced lifeforms would look for systems likely to support life and that we are starting to do that. NASA has the Kepler mission on tap to look for earth like systems.

http://kepler.nasa.gov/about /

Indeed absence of evidence gleaned by SETI is by no means evidence of absence.

Open eyes are nothing without open minds.

Scuba

[Martin Eden]

62. Cool web site, thanks!

I doubt I'll live to see significant results from the Kepler Mission, but the duration of our lifetimes are insignificant in the context of the search for extraterrestrial life.

[and-justice-for-all]

54. They are out there...

I have no doubts about it.

[Orrex]

57. Out there? Sure. Why not? The universe is a big place.

But "around here?"

Ehhh, not so much.