digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at damninteresting.com

I SETI was an alien

damninteresting.com — In forty-seven years of signal-seeking, SETI twice detected signals of possibly intelligent origins – The "Wow!" signal in 1977, and Radio Source SHGb02+14a in 2004.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sotopheavy, on 12/05/2007, -10/+31I see what you did there.
    • Biks, on 12/05/2007, -1/+17C'mon..how many puns have you seen off of "SETI"? :-)
  • jb55, on 12/05/2007, -1/+23Dugg for title
    • mdoerr, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7I DONT see what he did there; what'd he do there?
  • aajjcckk, on 12/05/2007, -37/+84*Ahem*. *Actually* if I may be so bold as to correct this story - Dr Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project (http://www.disclosureproject.org) - one of the most well connected people on the planet (which vouches extremely well for the man's credibility, authority and truthfullness) - has said in several recent radio interviews that there is a significant coverup going on in the SETI project and has been for some time. The actual truth of the matter is some time ago they tried a new way of scanning for signals and were suddenly pretty much saturated with structured communications that could only have originated with ET intelligences. This was the opposite end of the scale to a single repeating "bleep" - they in fact hit the "motherlode" in their quest. Unfortunately, but rather inevitably, it was shut down, or covered up by the powers that be (no, not the government). Greer has been told this from separate authoratative sources on separate occasions. Dr Seth Shostak of SETI, is well aware of it apparently, but has been hushed up, despite his obvious denials. It's a shame they're milking Paul Allen for the Allen Telescope Array.
    Honestly, the truth is *so* far in advance of all this BS SETI and NASA etc put out, it's just not funny. If you want the truth, start with the Disclosure Project. A lot of senior political, business, and religious leaders across the world already have.
    • aajjcckk, on 12/05/2007, -16/+34Sorry, forgot to add - in case we get the inevitable "it's impossible for there to be a coverup in the SETI project because of this, this and this!". Sorry, you're wrong. It's not only possible, it's happening, regardless of how SETI's structured or who said what about how impossible a coverup is. Nice little fantasy, but anything can be covered up anywhere if you want to.
      • andrewrocks, on 12/05/2007, -10/+21I was about to add the obligatory disclosure project link, but I see someone beat me to it. Sucks that you're getting dugg down. People just don't want to believe.
      • Urusai, on 12/06/2007, -4/+8They're also covering up the fact that The Authority is just a senile angel, and that Jesus didn't die and is now living on Kolob.
      • OneLess, on 12/06/2007, -2/+12So your reply to people who would say a coverup is impossible is "NUH UH". Somehow I'm not convinced.
        • williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8How long was the F117, which required the participation of THOUSANDS of people to design, build and operate, flying before anyone knew about it?
        • ErrorS, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1We knew about it in Vegas years before it was made public.. this information is all over the internet if you check, people REMEMBER when it was classified. You can even find old news stories about some 'mysterious craft' seen flying over the deserts of Nevada at night. We saw some pretty good shots of it too.. sure, noone knew exactly what it was, the government kept denying its existance, but they would basically fly these things over Las Vegas in the middle of the night in plain sight.
          Honestly, the F117 is one of the main reasons I believe most conspiricy theories aren't true.. Clinton during his presidency also joyfully announced the discovery of life on another planet in a press conference.. he did it so rashly that it ended up being a false alarm (the Mars meteorite).

          Two things I know from experience and I am 100% sure of.
          1. N ot much goes on in Area51 that is truly secret
          2. President Clinton either doesn't know if we've visited/talked to/captured aliens OR we haven't ever had contact with aliens.
          • t3soro, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3and who is to say they dont have more area 51's that we are yet to discover?
          • hollowex, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3I love the logic. I don't believe in conspiracies because I knew of a conspiracy first hand.
    • caerwyn, on 12/05/2007, -17/+38I hear there are some great deals on tinfoil hats to be found this holiday season...
      • dunk71, on 12/05/2007, -11/+6Ooh! Ooh! Tinfoil hats! I gotta get me one of them!
      • VAXcat, on 12/05/2007, -5/+31 Use of the term "timfoil hat" is considered pejorative. We prefer the term "Faraday Beanie".
    • blankhorizons, on 12/05/2007, -15/+74Yeah dude, thanks for shedding light on this huge massive coverup, excellent evidence, strong points! My only question is, legally speaking, are you retarded?
      • SlipstreamLucas, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7it makes me wonder, if there WAS some sort of cover up, and you knew somthing about it, how would you tell people? how would you do it differently to this guy?
      • staffa, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I'd start by dumping a copy of the signal on the Internet, if it was long enough and truly alien it would probably be strange enough to generate a lot of interest and the interest itself would be enough to discover if it was a hoax or the real deal, though it might take a few years.
    • FeartheKnighted, on 12/05/2007, -15/+10I bet you think the Earth is flat.
    • cococooky, on 12/05/2007, -4/+16The Disclosure Project http://www.disclosureproject.org
      Fixed your link for you.
      • aelias, on 12/06/2007, -2/+11I wish you hadn't. Greer is a ***** wackjob. He's all about disclosure, but he doesn't disclose *****. Why not tell everyone what they used to find all those signals? Nope, he spends his time talking to non-journalists about corporate coverups and military spending. What the hell does that have to do with data that's freely available?
    • sgoogle, on 12/05/2007, -1/+11New scanning method resulted in a saturation of 'ET communications'? Sounds like a bug to me
      • chaosium, on 12/05/2007, -0/+16THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THIIIINK
    • webcrumb, on 12/05/2007, -1/+8A .org would be a lot more convincing if they didn't ask for a donation to access their files.
    • 471776, on 12/05/2007, -2/+16A new way of scanning for signals? Just exactly how many ways are there to scan radio frequencies?
    • Biks, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5Woody Allen comes to mind: "If only I had a sock filled with horse manure."
    • TheOther1, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Impossible. My PC is still crunching SETI units.
    • aelias, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Apparently, the coverup is so deeply seated, that those who are trying desperately to uncover it stopped giving interviews in 2005.
      http://www.disclosureproject.org/transcripts.htm

      or it's all *****. Either way.
      • Saint714, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0Dammit. I *knew* this kinda stuff was going to start happening the minute I quit drinking 151 & Liquid Paper *****.
    • LucasKane, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4FLAT EARTHERS UNITE!
    • OneLess, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Being well-connected speaks to your credibility? I'll bet President Bush knows more people than Steven Greer.
    • BenRS, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7All you have to do is take a physics class that involves a treatment of light to understand that regardless the "scanning method," there is no way that a dish the size of SETI could possibly get "saturated" by incoming intelligent signals or get "the motherload." There's just too much space. Think the distance to Mars is far? Well the signal strength is inversely proportional to area, not just distance, so multiply that distance by 4*Pi*Distance again and that's what you'd have to divide the original intensity by to get the singal strength there.

      It doesn't matter even if such a method magically makes the scanning far more efficient, because coverups and conspiracies require the burden of truth due to rarity and complexity, so you should really find direct evidence of said coverups before believing them, not just take the first scrap of evidence and decide that proves it.

      The sad part is that I'm guessing there's a good chance that you smugly write of religious folks as irrational people; sometimes it seems like conspiracies have become the religion for those that don't want religion.

      Some day we'll probably make contact with aliens, but I'm willing to bet that we won't observe them through SETI.
    • RussellDovey, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2What is this new way of searching? All you have to do to blow this wide open is make the method public, and dozens of radio astronomers around the world will tell us if you're right within days.
    • nova9, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1So what will this disclosure project do other than saying the gov't covered something up??
    • starmanjones, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1|>he actual truth of the matter is some time ago they tried a new
      |>way of scanning for signals and were suddenly pretty much
      |>saturated with structured communications that could only have
      |>originated with ET intelligences.

      hey... i've been persuaded by greer. he is credible and the number of credible people speaking out carries weight. its hard to just dismiss them as a skeptic. he has gone about this in the right way.

      but, saturated with communications is not happening or it'd be on every news cast. you might be able to send goon squads out to snap up hardware and intimidate people... but communications can't be bottled up. can't buy that.
    • PoorCollegeGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0Links or it didn't happen.
  • Hipple, on 12/05/2007, -1/+79I really hope I live a few more hundred years. I feel like some cool ***** is gonna go down.
    • monospaced, on 12/05/2007, -1/+28They've been saying that for thousands of years.
      • RoyalPwner, on 12/05/2007, -2/+37Yeah. And cool ***** has been going down.
        Think: Planes. Combustion Engine. Electric lightbulb. And I could go on and on.
        • dafragsta, on 12/05/2007, -2/+19All within the past 100 years. Humanity is about to take a quantum leap in technology in the next hundred... literally a quantum leap. When we start working with computers that can process all potential outcomes, while doubling their performance every year, all technology and biology will begin to benefit. Read up on the technological singularity.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singula ...
          • Endemoniada, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Yeah, unless corporate interests kill all hope of that ever happening. Just look at the medical patent situation. We could be getting rid of AIDS and several other diseases if it weren't for the fact that poor countries aren't ALLOWED to make their own medicine. Letting them heal their own people would make a handful of directors less wealthy, and we can't have that, can we?
            A lot of cool stuff will go down, absolutely... but not nearly as much as would happen if money hadn't been there to halt progress.
          • RussellDovey, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3A quantum leap, ie the change in energy between one quantum state and the next, is the SMALLEST leap one can possibly make. So if it's a "literal" quantum leap you're predicting, colour me unimpressed.
        • revenge7, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6I hope Kurzweil knows what he's talking about.
        • tyywebb, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Long Live the Singularity!!!!!
      • xtc46, on 12/05/2007, -1/+8and they were right... look how much "cool *****" has happened in the last thousand years. Guns, Cars, Planes, Bombs, computers, the internet, brain surgery, landing on the moon (soon to be mars) cool ***** happens every day.
        • revenge7, on 12/06/2007, -8/+2MOON LANDING FAKE

          Just getting it out of the way...
        • ChromaVita, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Of all the good things that have gone on in the last thousand years, I vote that we don't put Guns or Bombs on the list. Thanks.
    • geuis2, on 12/05/2007, -2/+7You don't need to live a few hundred years. This stuff is going to happen within the next 25-50.
    • nnagflar, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Well, if we can just engineer robot bodies to replaces these weak, organic bodies, we will be able to live hundreds of years.
      • tyywebb, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2The question is, do we have to hook up organic brains to robotic bodies, or can we find a way to implement our personalities in silicon? I, for one, could look forward to a few mind upgrades!
        • nnagflar, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Amen to that.
        • TritonX, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Scary, I'm not sure the human mind would be able to cope if it was confronted with a copy itself.
    • andre321, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Would that really be a good thing? There wouldn't be enough space for everyone to live or food to eat etc.
      • blast_flame, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Generally death is one of the worst scenarios possible so yes. We'll find ways to cope whether it's expanding into space, using our resources better or making everyone choose between having children and living forever.
    • Saint714, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0I'm looking forward to the mutation/evolution of women so they have three breasteses. Hope the third one's not on the back again.
  • bicyclethief, on 12/05/2007, -1/+32I knew I should have gone with the fish tank screensaver.
  • airwalkery2k, on 12/05/2007, -2/+46And it's always possible that aliens found a more efficient or different way of transmitting data.

    We're assuming here that civilization and technology are linear, and that radio waves would be used forever as a means of communication.

    I hope I am proved wrong.
    • ruthless34, on 12/05/2007, -12/+4Well, physics doesn't rally allow other means...
      • megaton, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Right. Because quantum entanglement isn't actually physics...
      • i208khonsu, on 12/06/2007, -1/+14Our current understanding of physics doesn't really allow other means...
      • airwalkery2k, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Yeah, Newtonian physicists never could have imagined what's available now.
    • legendxx, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4no.. we're assuming that we only have the technology to measure radio waves which is our best guess as to what type of communication can travel long distances... It's kinda hard to be looking for something that we have no idea exists.. they're doing the best they can.
    • hollowex, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3The actual assumption is that any civilization that is comparable to us would have gone through a radio phase.
  • wallet55, on 12/05/2007, -0/+7i loved playing with the interactive drake equation, my best estimates of what i think likely, where i feel i have some knowledge, is between .1 and 3 civilizations in our galaxy. what did others come up with? the real question, not implied in this thing, was whether that was the number that we could expect to hear signals from, or those that might be actually active now, (and we would have to survive long enough to get their signals)
    • TritonX, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3New Milky Way stars per year = 6.00
      Proportion of stars which have planets = 20.00%
      Average number of life-compatible satellites = 0.05
      Percentage of planets where life does appear = 90.00%
      Percentage where intelligent life evolves = 10.00%
      Percentage of civilizations which send signals into space = 90.00%
      Average years that civilizations will send signals = 200.00

      Average civilizations in our galaxy = 1
      • williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Yup, the Drake equation (function, really) gives pretty pessimistic, "rare Earth" type results if you tone down the assumptions. We could, in fact, be all alone in our galaxy, and among many neighboring galaxies is you dial down some assumptions.
        • iiDLii, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5kinda makes you hope we don't ***** up this one too much...
    • donjuan571, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2communicable civilizations able to send and receive in our present civilizations time. Most stars in our galaxy are thousands of light years away, so the time to broadcast and receive a message may take longer than the life time of their civilization. If you think about it, we have only been a civilization for 3000 or so years, so thats a huge factor in estimating who we can actually talk to.
  • petemcfraser, on 12/05/2007, -1/+28Author's estimate was 42.
    Author isn't Douglas Adams.
    Preparing for logic fail.
    • gn0stik, on 12/05/2007, -0/+16Pfft. That's cheating, he chose the answer to everything. Of course it's gonna be right.
  • mpdid, on 12/05/2007, -4/+7I Want to Believe.
  • tehmark, on 12/05/2007, -13/+15Advanced civilizations don't listen to the radio. They have IPODS
    • neodorian, on 12/06/2007, -0/+12Well I for one welcome our trendy turtleneck wearing overlords.
      • BlackStrain, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0And their reality distorting technology.
  • RoyalPwner, on 12/05/2007, -4/+2Down already.
  • Blu1913, on 12/05/2007, -0/+7So who are the powers that be, if not the government?
  • bogdanglushak, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1Has anyone already copyrighted the trademark "Solar FM" or "Solar 5 Channel"? Perhaps, soon it can be of use.
    • meredith, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Well, there's Space Channel 5...
    • neodorian, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Our local rock station changed formats to a Spanish channel a few years ago and it's an FM station called El Zol.
  • xxenclavexx, on 12/05/2007, -9/+1and I thought the war was a waste of money...
  • junk, on 12/05/2007, -1/+12Dugg for the interactive Drake equation tool.
  • Biks, on 12/05/2007, -3/+27Holy crap! I (as the submitter) made it to the front page! :-) Woo hoo!
    I'm personally for the "rare earth" theory. Then again, with global warming, it may have to be called the "medium to well done" theory.
    • neodorian, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11Dugg if only for the joke.
    • elnerdo, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7The Rare Earth theory seems to be the most sensible one there. We've certainly never observed any intelligent life that's not humanoid, and it's still possible that we ARE the only intelligent species in the universe. We have nothing to prove otherwise.
      • MacEnvy, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10That doesn't make it more sensible, or more likely. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", after all.
      • Biks, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Stephen Webb had a good book on this. One of this points was that the Earth/Moon relationship that we have is very weird even in our own solar system. Computer simulations show that it's very difficult to have an almost binary system form off of a collision with a large body. (i.e. early moon formation) AND it has to happen at the right distance from a sun.
        • williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5I am generally one of these "there must be something to UFOs" people, but the Drake equation is hardly a slam dunk for life on other planets in our galaxy. "Rare Earth" could be spot on. All the more reason to be careful about out existence.

          That said, life in other places could be very very different.
        • Spoomeister, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1But couldn't some intelligence figure out that that system promotes life? And then set it in place? Which suggests that either a) someone came before us and put the earth and moon in the right configuration, or b) we'll be the first ones to do it eons from now and spawn off similar races of beings?
          No ID or FSM references intended in here.
    • iiDLii, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8For some reason I imagine you to sound like Butters when I read your first comment :)
  • aintnoprophet, on 12/05/2007, -2/+10We get signal.
  • Takteek, on 12/05/2007, -1/+6Damn Interesting has some of the best written articles on the internet.
  • 0x90, on 12/05/2007, -2/+2lame. the quote from the description is the only text in the article referring to the wow signal...
  • orangefly, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1aliens have been getting music and movies from torrents since the 40's....
  • SLockhart, on 12/05/2007, -8/+0We are alone (opinion). That Drake equation meter is so ridiculously unscientific (fact). Talk about a priori assumptions.
  • 28dayslater, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Oh my God Tom Cruise was right!!!!!
  • semiotix, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9The problem with SETI is that, if it works, we'll potentially have to deal with an intelligent alien race with only our own science fiction to guide us, and that's pretty much guaranteed to get us nuked from orbit.

    Besides, I'm not interested in alien life unless it's EXACTLY like a fictional alien species I'm already familiar with. Klingons? Sure. Something that looks and acts like a Klingon except it's blue? Pass. And I don't want any crappy direct-to-video or syndicated aliens, either. If the "Earth: Final Conflict" or "Space: Above and Beyond" aliens show up, forget it.
    • Biks, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Right. What you want is something with a rubber, bumpy thing on their forehead. (see: any humanoid alien on the SciFi channel.) :-P
      • williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9Yeah WTF is it with the not-very-alien aliens? Aliens should be strange, different - ALIEN! Those spider things from Babylon 5, for example. THAT's an alien. Some hot chick with a bumpy bald head? Not so much.
    • tyywebb, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3It's the only way to be sure ; )
  • noots, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5i guess in a round about way the grand theory of Scientology is loosely correct.

    what a ***** bitch.
  • stormgren, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5You can't stop the signal!
  • baldgye, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0pretty damn interesting, and i would love to see the bond movie set in a 33,000km dish
  • thydzik, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2great read.
    I believe.
  • threemagic, on 12/06/2007, -11/+4why is it that people who steadfastly believe in Christianity deny the possibility of aliens and those that steadfastly believe in aliens don't believe in Christianity...


    me.. I maintain my agnostic views on both.

    :)
    • TritonX, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Except that the argument for alien life make much more sense that the other assumption.
  • Siegfriedson, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Digging this article for its mention of the Fermi paradox, which proponents of the theory of extraterrestrial life have not been able to counter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
    • alexkorova, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5There are numerous arguments against the Fermi paradox, some which are actually mentioned on the page you linked to!
    • angryredplanet, on 12/06/2007, -0/+41) Where are they/Why don't they show up?
      If they did show up, how do you think they would be treated given their obviously very highly advanced technology and humanity's intolerance to different races, creeds and religions? The answer: they'd have to be pretty stupid to want to.

      2) Why are there no visible spaceships or probes?
      There are and have been - some covered up and others not so. Roswell 1947, "The battle of L.A." 1942 and more recently, "The Phoenix lights" in 1997. These are only a few. I'd also suggest listening to some of the testimony given in the disclosure project from air force and airliner pilots. They see things up there frequently but keep things quiet in order to keep their jobs. Additionally, astronauts are briefed to not mention the phenomena they encounter. The reason for covering things like this up: A dumb public is an easily manipulated public.

      3) Why can't we detect their radio transmissions?
      A radio signal could literally take 1000's of years to reach it's destination. Assuming any given ET has a lifespan similar to ours, you're looking at 10-15 LIFETIMES... for a one way transmission!! For interstellar travel, the adventurers would require a better form of communication. I don't propose the answer to this, but the logic is hereby given.

      The Fermi paradox is a relic of the times in which it was proposed, the 1950's.
      • RussellDovey, on 12/06/2007, -0/+41. If they showed up, there would be absolutely no danger to them. Their technology, even a mere thousand years ahead of us, would give them a military advantage greater than an aircraft carrier vs the Spanish Armada. You have no good answer to the "Why aren't they here?" question. (Personally, I like the "we're boring, backwards and barely sentient" explanation, but that's me.)

        2. No. You are wrong. There has been no proven sighting of alien spacecraft. I'm sorry, but we MUST be scientific about this, it's the most important question in history. No matter how reputable-sounding a person is, they can always be mistaken, misled or lying for some personal gain. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for solid, verifiable evidence.

        3. The radio transmissions from alien civilisations could be out there all over the place. However, the better encryption/compression gets on a message, the harder it is to distinguish that message from random noise. I think that if anyone's out there using radio, we're not seeing it for that reason.
        • angryredplanet, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11. Yes, there is much danger for them. Firstly, there is us with our anthropogenic bias. When somebody looks, acts or believes differently to our set of preconceived norms, they are ostracized, and that's putting it mildly. Secondly, there is the threat of microbial and/or viral infection. Getting knocked down by an ET form of flu could really suck given nil level prior exposure and immune system response. Thirdly, our planet may have 100 times the gravity of an ET planet. We have evolved to live in it, but an ET may not have the bone or organ structure to withstand it (assuming they're carbon based and have a form similar to ours).

          I don't agree that we're boring. I think they would still check us out for reasons of exploitation, scientific experimentation, documentation etc. If I had the ability to go interstellar, I certainly would stop off to check out the sights along the way. Wouldn't you? Curiosity is inherent with intelligence.

          2. No, I'll concede there is no "scientifically proven" evidence although there is an astounding amount of circumstantial evidence. Let's look at Roswell - Col. William Blanchard was the man in charge on July 4 1947 when the UFOs allegedly went down. He came out the next day and did a press release that they'd captured a flying saucer, only to admit another day later that it was a weather balloon. Bill, a military man with years of training and experience WOULD KNOW the difference between a weather balloon and an ET craft. The only thing he'd gain from doing this would be a 100% loss of credibility!! The actual crash was witnessed by many others, and the local sheriff, George Wilcox received multiple calls regarding this event.

          Perhaps you're right, maybe there is something he personally gained from doing that but losing his job, getting ostracized (or at least looked upon as inept) by friends/family/work colleagues etc seems a very high price to pay. Remember that in 1947 your social status was measured by where you worked and who you married. Life was simpler then.

          3. I think EM communication has the serious limitation of speed. Maybe a form of sub-quantum tunneling or worm holes... I don't know on this one.

          It's been good debating! :-)
          • eviltandem, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1So the argument is these magical flying men can figure out how to travel billions of light years, but skipped the class on microbes, chemistry, pressure, and gravity? I doubt it. I bet they might even have pressurized space suits which would do the trick just fine. Probably the biggest problems would be the atmosphere, gravity, and pressure. Those are far more likely to be different b/w us, necessitating a pressurized suit of some sort. Seeing as microbes have a real problem crossing similar species on earth, I'm guessing it's next to impossible that aliens would just happen to have biochemistry compatible to anything we would have.

            If I had the technology to travel billions and billions of light years, I doubt I would do any sight seeing. First because the likely hood of something being between you and the destination is really small. Second I'm probably not traveling through normal space like a car. I probably have some doohiki that specializes in getting me from A to B very fast. I doubt anyone wanders randomly through space stumbling upon galaxies or solar systems. Simply because one could wander forever through empty space and never come upon either.
      • eviltandem, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11. Because the probability is that they aren't there. Anyone technologically capable of getting to us would be sufficiently advanced over us that we would pose absolutely no threat to them.

        2. Because there aren't any spaceships or probes. Kind of self-evident I thought. I don't see unicorns because they don't exist. You don't see alien spaceships on earth because they don't exist.

        3. If you read tfa you'd realize that even if there were some aliens in the local galaxy, and they were actively transmitting data, we don't have receivers that would be capable of picking them up, unless of course they were intentionally beaming intense signals directly at us (which seems unlikely. if they are close enough to receive signals we have already sent, we should have detected them too).

        Your problem is, like religion, you are assuming something based on zero actual evidence. You want it to be true so badly that you just search for things that support your pre-conceived notion. The science of the matter says that, for now, we are alone in this little corner of this galaxy.
        • angryredplanet, on 12/07/2007, -0/+11. Your reasoning is based on nothing more than assumption.

          2. The probability that unicorns exist is zero. They're mythological creatures so that's a no-brainer. The probability of ETs existing is comparatively larger. "You don't see alien spaceships on earth because they don't exist." - once again your argument is based on assumption.

          3. I did rtfa and nowhere have I presumed that ETs are from OUR LOCAL GALAXY. I pointed out that transmissions using EM radiation are bound by the speed of light. We know that most star systems are so distant it would take an unacceptably long time to send and receive a communication. Directed EM radiation would not be an effective communication medium in interstellar space. If you read my response, you'd realise that you're actually reaffirming my original point.

          Thanks for feeling it necessary to point out, but I don't have a problem, religious or otherwise. I am open minded, seemingly unlike you. I concede that there is no "scientific evidence" that has been allowed to the general public. There is strong circumstantial evidence that indicates the opposite to what you infer. You can choose to believe, or not to. Either way I won't accuse you of being akin to a fundamental religious zealot because that's totally unrelated, has no place in this discussion and is a very cheap way of getting diggs. If you're passionate about atheism, fantastic, but don't go flying it in the face of every stranger you encounter. I'd suggest joining an atheism club where you can be with like minded atheists.
          • eviltandem, on 12/11/2007, -0/+11. Neither is yours. My assumptions are, however, based on the observable evidence. Yours contradicts it.

            2. You can never prove unicorns don't exist. There is a non-zero probability that I will turn into a unicorn 2 seconds after posting this. It's just very, very unlikely. The first clue I have you don't know what you're talking about is you think there is a zero probability of anything.

            There's nothing more "realistic" about aliens flying from other galaxies to visit us in secret, than the idea there might be unicorns somewhere. Maybe unicorns are flying your UFO's...

            3. If you admit they aren't even in our local galaxy, and they can't have detected our transmissions yet, so how did they find us? We are 1 star in trillions. In 1 galaxy in trillions. There is nothing remarkable we know about in our little corner of this galaxy (and that includes us).

            The probability that they would accidentally stumble on us seems much much much smaller than the probability that they even exist or can travel as far as you think they can.

            "...strong circumstantial evidence that indicates the opposite of what you infer..."

            Apparently you don't know the definition of the word "circumstantial". The word itself means you have no real evidence, just a hypothesis, without any hard evidence. I could find circumstantial evidence for unicorns, big foot, etc...

            I'm not fanatical about atheism. I'm fanatical about people who are fanatical about something with no evidence. I'm not saying there aren't aliens, or that they could not visit us. I'm saying that it's science-fiction to say they are, or that you believe they are. Just like saying god exists because you believe he is, without any concrete evidence suggesting it is true.

            One believes in a magical man in the sky that does miraculous things we can't do or understand. The other believes in magical men in the sky who can do all kinds of miraculous things we can't do or understand.
  • zonk3r, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4That wasn't an alien. It was some kid trying to steal his neighbors wifi to get higher speed porn with a high gain antenna. Silly scientists, they'll believe anything.
  • DrMilkdad, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Isn't that the satellite from Goldeneye?
  • databoy, on 12/06/2007, -4/+8Do you honestly believe that if ET was contacted that the world government's would publicise the face. In Australia we have the top secret installation known as Pine Gap.

    http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_tim ...

    Officially it is a USA spooks base. I have heard a number of interesting stories over the years about "advanced flying vehicles" flying around in the Australian outback. People in the area believe than it may have UFO type vehicles dropping in.

    Whatever your personal believes are; one thing is for certain. The status quo remains. World Government's will disclaim any sightings or contacts with UFO's. SETI will claim it is a radio glitch. Religion will claim that the Bible is the unblemished work of God.

    For many years, the local observatory has been buying up a particular Intel 486 chip from a local second hand computer dealer. When questioned about the chip and its use, the guy replied: Intel does not make 486's any more. The chips which have survived are well burnt in and have a low chance of chip failure. If they survive the first five years of computer use they will operate for the next twenty. Speed is not a factor, the chips are used to analyse deep space signals. We have tried Pentiums but they get stuck on the noise. The 486 analyses the signal gets to the noise and says I don't recognise noise and keeps performing. When the dealer removes the CPU's from the computers, he phones the observatory. A guy personally picks up the chips, packages them and delivers them to the airport.

    As Fox Mulder says: The truth is out there. I will add: don't expect to find it in the local newspaper or on digg.
    • aB0z, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9"Speed is not a factor, the chips are used to analyse deep space signals. We have tried Pentiums but they get stuck on the noise. The 486 analyses the signal gets to the noise and says I don't recognise noise and keeps performing."

      You seem to have a very poor understanding of electronics and computers. That is why you believe BS conspiracy stories. I certainly believe that the government hides things from us, and that they may have better technology than is available to the average citizen. I DON'T believe your crackpot story about 486 CPUs, with it's glaring factual and logical errors.
    • Farticus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Is is sad what excessive beer and sun light does to the more feeble minded amongst us.
    • tyywebb, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I expect to find the Truth and nothing but the Truth on digg!
  • dartmanx, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2I for one welcome our new alien overlords.
  • djdeckard, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1The Arecibo observatory is also the Cradle from the end of Goldeneye!

    (can't find a screencap, sorry!)
  • ScottoGato, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4Probably the best documentary regarding UFOs is here:
    http://video.google.com/url?docid=-598099022176643 ...
  • DuffyDirect, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Wow, a lot of astronomers pst on Digg.
  • djdeckard, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2The Arecibo observatory is also the Cradle from the end of Goldeneye!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldeneye , about halfway down, under 'Filming'
    • crashingechelon, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Glad I'm not the only that made that connection. When clicked the link and saw the dish my first thought that came to mind was GoldenEye.
  • SilverBack101, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1See this is why you have more countries in on this so no one Institution controls the data.
  • BESTenemy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9I remember some comedian saying that the very proof of existence of "intelligent" life in the universe is the fact that they've never visited us.
  • Kazbaeden, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10"...some fraction of the 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems..."

    Scientific notation was invented for a reason...
    • williamdyer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I like how people think that number is big. It is about one tenth the number of molecules in a mole. NOT SO BIG NOW, ARE YOU, VISIBLE UNIVERSE??
    • Ducksa, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2They use scientific notation throughout the article. I assume this massive number is for demonstration purposes. 10^22 just doesn't have the same sense of magnitude.
  • tecratour, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Is it possible that the "wow" signal was just one of our millions of radio transmissions that was somehow bounced back?
    • RussellDovey, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Possible, but they did everything they could to eliminate that possibility. The sad fact is that since it didn't repeat (or hasn't repeated YET) we'll probably never know.
  • Savetheducks, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Who's trying to talk to us?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpFtSkK5Xhw
  • yujie, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2When can we welcome our new overlord?
  • cherwilco, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2well if you consider how many different wavelengths we broadcast at ridiculous powers all over the world I sure as hell hope any intelligent species that attempts to contact us isnt affected by microwaves/uhf/vhf/FM/AM/Satellite bands and whatnot. cuz if they are we might just screwing with all their ships systems inadvertently with an episode of the Simpson's or something! could be ugly
  • SirDomino, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0In a Star Trek Universe classification I think we as humans are a mix between Klingons and Ferengi.
  • Rintrah23, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3What the hell are UFO's then? Something is flying around in our skies that isn't us. The evidence for this is truly overwhelming. Whether it is extraterrestrial or not is the real question. I think the evidence strongly suggests that these are physical spacecrafts from elsewhere. I don't see how the SETI scientists can just ignore the obvious. Aliens are here and they don't use frequencies to communicate.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2LOL - dude. You said that OUT LOUD.
    • eviltandem, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2So overwhelming in fact that we have no actual evidence for it...
    • Rintrah23, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Just 1000's of pilots and government officials whose reputations are on the line,countless videos and photographs of them. There is physical evidence found at the sites of the landings. This isn't something we can reproduce in a lab. We can't predict where they will be or when. This makes it very difficult to scientifically verify. To me the evidence- eyewitnesses, video, audio, photographs, radar readings, of craft flying in the skies leads me to believe this is true. And if its true than this is the most important topic concerning mankind. Yeah , I said that out loud.
  • Redseele, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I hope we will find ourselves encountering a blue police box sometime soon.
  • Spoomeister, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I won't believe it until a major public figure endorses it, like Dennis Kucinich.

    Oh, wait...
  • donkeySays, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1WOW!
  • Farticus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6I'm still searching for intelligent life on Digg, so far my efforts have proven futile....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.