UFOs: No Longer Crazy?

[SYZ]

... They would be a different "animal" and would be as different from we humans as we humans are different from any other animal on earth.

Not so apparently...

Although figures vary from study to study, it's currently generally accepted
that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and their close relatives the bonobos
(Pan paniscus) are both humans' closest-living relatives, with each species
sharing around 98.7% of our DNA.

Various studies have put the percentage from as low as 96% to as high as 99.4%.
Some scientists believe that chimps and bonobos are so similar to humans that
they should be reclassified into the genus Homo.

Humans and chimps/bonobos are believed to have had a common ancestor as
little as 8 million years ago—which is a fairly short time in evolutionary terms.
[Guinness World Records Limited 2021 ]

We have seen endless UFO clear videos and images, and none impress me. But when we employ military grade scientific instruments, along with military trained expert eyewitnesses, I will take that over a million clear UFO videos and images any day of the week.

I agree that none of the "images" of alleged UFOs are convincing.  I disagree
however that any/all of these images or videos are "clear".  They're universally
indistinct, out of focus, pixellated, and ill-defined; and certainly provide zero
evidence as to what exactly they represent.

I'd be interested in seeing any clear images that're available, as the only ones
I've ever seen are totally crap quality.    Links please.

[Thumpalumpacus]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

[Dānu]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably. But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

[Dancefortwo]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

If you want to look at unusual evolutionary outcome look to our planet's oceans.  Here is the Dumbo Octopus which lives 9000 feet under the ocean. 



Creatures in the deepest parts of the oceans look like outerspace aliens to me.   They're further away from the sun and air they are the weirder they get.  

This is a sea pen.  It's an animal made out of polyps furchrissakes!   Really?  Yes.  One polyp grows and then another grows on top of it.    I mean, what the hell?



And then there's the Gulper Eel fish at 10,000 feet below sea level.  Icky-poo.



So it depends on the environment on a planet as to what you'll get in the way of life.  If a planet has a heavier gravitational pull the animals would reflect this.   But I'm not going to hold my breath and hope that an alien looks like this guy....




LOL  Brad Pitt, age 22.

[airportkid]

... If you want to look at unusual evolutionary outcome look to our planet's oceans ...

Boy is that ever true!  Not being pinned to a surface by gravity full time gives evolutionary diversity room to, well, diversify - which it does, in infinite configurations.

Land creatures, on the other hand, have tended to coalesce about a common configuration - well, two configurations:  At the size of insects, six locomotion appendages appears to be the optimum, with auxiliary sensory appendages.  Arachnids, an ancient life form, are an exception at 8 locomotion appendages.  Insect size itself seems optimum, with the number of insects vastly outnumbering larger land forms.

Larger than insect land animals are virtually always 4 limbed, with a tail that variously is useful or superfluous.  Limbs incur expense to sustain, and they're at risk of being injured or severed.  4 seems to be what's optimum in the balance between dexterity and staying intact.

The evolutionary convergence on having all the neural control consolidated at a head, rather than distributing it, I find especially interesting, since neurological control is crucial to survival yet having it all in one place, often exposed, increases vulnerability to losing it.

Seeing the basic similarities that persist across species and extinctions and hundreds of millions of years leads me to think that alien land creatures will likely have the same basic configuration:  4 limbs, a tail, and a head.  They may not look like Brad Pitt at age 22 - they could wind up being to our eye even MORE attractive.  Captain Kirk would definitely agree on that point!

[Dancefortwo]

... If you want to look at unusual evolutionary outcome look to our planet's oceans ...

Boy is that ever true!  Not being pinned to a surface by gravity full time gives evolutionary diversity room to, well, diversify - which it does, in infinite configurations.

Land creatures, on the other hand, have tended to coalesce about a common configuration - well, two configurations:  At the size of insects, six locomotion appendages appears to be the optimum, with auxiliary sensory appendages.  Arachnids, an ancient life form, are an exception at 8 locomotion appendages.  Insect size itself seems optimum, with the number of insects vastly outnumbering larger land forms.

Larger than insect land animals are virtually always 4 limbed, with a tail that variously is useful or superfluous.  Limbs incur expense to sustain, and they're at risk of being injured or severed.  4 seems to be what's optimum in the balance between dexterity and staying intact.

The evolutionary convergence on having all the neural control consolidated at a head, rather than distributing it, I find especially interesting, since neurological control is crucial to survival yet having it all in one place, often exposed, increases vulnerability to losing it.

Seeing the basic similarities that persist across species and extinctions and hundreds of millions of years leads me to think that alien land creatures will likely have the same basic configuration:  4 limbs, a tail, and a head.  They may not look like Brad Pitt at age 22 - they could wind up being to our eye even MORE attractive.  Captain Kirk would definitely agree on that point!

The atmosphere might be heavier than the earths so life would evolve differently.  If there is a lesser light source life evolves differently. 

 It seems to me  that nobody ever saw spaceships or UFOs 400 years ago. They immediately identified odd phenomenon as witches, ghosts, Satan (Catholics were visited by Virgin Mary) in India it was a Hindu god up in the sky.   So religious believers, which was most everyone, looked at the sky and explained it with religion.   It wasn't until electricity and more modern times that people began even thinking about life outside of this planet.  H G Wells put it over the top and the universe is explained in scientific terms and the possibility of other life in the universe. Now when people see some strange object in the sky it's not the Abrahamic god or Zeus or a Chinese family ancestor coming back to curse them, it's something outside of this planet.  It's an alien!   Confirmation bias is such a bitch.

[Thumpalumpacus]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

It's possible, sure. I think it'd be very unlikely for a number of reasons. I'd be willing to bet that they'd share the property of physiological symmetry, something analogous to our central nervous system, and limbs as well. But there are a host of physical properties of their home planet which could make a mash of almost any other human property.

[Dānu]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

It's possible, sure. I think it'd be very unlikely for a number of reasons. I'd be willing to bet that they'd share the property of physiological symmetry, something analogous to our central nervous system, and limbs as well. But there are a host of physical properties of their home planet which could make a mash of almost any other human property.

Intelligence rather than natural advantages?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

It's possible, sure. I think it'd be very unlikely for a number of reasons. I'd be willing to bet that they'd share the property of physiological symmetry, something analogous to our central nervous system, and limbs as well. But there are a host of physical properties of their home planet which could make a mash of almost any other human property.

Intelligence rather than natural advantages?

Certainly, and that's what I was getting at regarding the central nervous system, though I suppose it's entirely possible that their intelligence has a different architecture, dispersed instead of centralized.

That's certainly a channel for natural selection available on any planet that could support life, I bet. Intelligence is in itself a weapon in a very real sense in terms of selection. Local conditions aren't going to change that, I don't think.

[brunumb]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

I agree.  In order to take advantage of higher intelligence, organisms would need to have better mobility and dexterity than other organisms.  Moving around and being able to manipulate the environment by creating and building structures seems to me to have been achieved efficiently with the two-armed, bipedal structure of the apes.  Any more limbs or appendages would probably not be as energy efficient and therefore not favoured by evolution.

The atmosphere was mentioned in this discussion.  We have evolved in an atmosphere that supplies essential oxygen for respiration.  Had the atmosphere contained less, then our lungs may have evolved differently to cope.  They struggle now as evidenced by people moving to higher altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner.  On the other hand, more oxygen in the atmosphere would be detrimental to life.  Oxygen supports combustion, so an atmosphere richer in oxygen would cause events like bushfires to be even more devastating than they are even now.  Such an environment may not even allow anything but basic organisms to survive and thrive.

There are so many environmental factors that are involved in directing the path of evolution that speculating on what life-forms may have arisen out there should not lead to the assumption that there should be things 'like' us.  Even if they are out there, I reckon the chance that they are within cooee of us and also have the appropriate technoolgy to find us is exceedingly small.

[Free]

I noticed you quoted Mordant saying those things when it was actually me. I will reply to your statements.

... They would be a different "animal" and would be as different from we humans as we humans are different from any other animal on earth.

Not so apparently...

Although figures vary from study to study, it's currently generally accepted that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and their close relatives the bonobos (Pan paniscus) are both humans' closest-living relatives, with each species sharing around 98.7% of our DNA.

Various studies have put the percentage from as low as 96% to as high as 99.4%. Some scientists believe that chimps and bonobos are so similar to humans that they should be reclassified into the genus Homo.

Humans and chimps/bonobos are believed to have had a common ancestor as little as 8 million years ago—which is a fairly short time in evolutionary terms.
[Guinness World Records Limited 2021 ]

I tend to think of areas in the universe in the same way I view different lands here on earth. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but other than humans there are no primates native to Australia and there are no fossil records of primates ever existing in Australia. There are also animals native only to Australia.

So my point is that right here on earth we have lands which are vastly different from other lands in regards to their lifeforms and of which also have an absence of lifeforms found elsewhere on earth. 

We have seen endless UFO clear videos and images, and none impress me. But when we employ military grade scientific instruments, along with military trained expert eyewitnesses, I will take that over a million clear UFO videos and images any day of the week.

I agree that none of the "images" of alleged UFOs are convincing.  I disagree however that any/all of these images or videos are "clear". They're universally indistinct, out of focus, pixellated, and ill-defined; and certainly provide zero evidence as to what exactly they represent.

I'd be interested in seeing any clear images that're available, as the only ones I've ever seen are totally crap quality.    Links please.

What you are seeing is a video of a video. All have been confirmed as authentic by the DoD.

[Minimalist]

And statistically, almost all UFO sightings are in the US, which strongly suggests something in our national psyche is producing the requisite confirmation bias to interpret them as aliens and/or supernatural.

Mord, one need only glance at anti-vaxxers, maskholes, QAnon shitheads, and Big Lie enthusiasts to realize that the problem is that the US has far too many morons and they all seem to be on the internet.

Other countries probably ascribe such sightings to "jesus" or mohammed on his flying carpet.

[SYZ]

I noticed you quoted Mordant saying those things when it was actually me. I will reply to your statements.

Oh... my bad!  My apologies to you both.    

(Must've been having one of my senior's days.)

[Free]

And statistically, almost all UFO sightings are in the US, which strongly suggests something in our national psyche is producing the requisite confirmation bias to interpret them as aliens and/or supernatural.

Mord, one need only glance at anti-vaxxers, maskholes, QAnon shitheads, and Big Lie enthusiasts to realize that the problem is that the US has far too many morons and they all seem to be on the internet.

Other countries probably ascribe such sightings to "jesus" or mohammed on his flying carpet.

^^^^ Post of the Fucking Year.

[mordant]

... They would be a different "animal" and would be as different from we humans as we humans are different from any other animal on earth.

Not so apparently...

Although figures vary from study to study, it's currently generally accepted
that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and their close relatives the bonobos
(Pan paniscus) are both humans' closest-living relatives, with each species
sharing around 98.7% of our DNA.

Various studies have put the percentage from as low as 96% to as high as 99.4%.
Some scientists believe that chimps and bonobos are so similar to humans that
they should be reclassified into the genus Homo.

Humans and chimps/bonobos are believed to have had a common ancestor as
little as 8 million years ago—which is a fairly short time in evolutionary terms.
[Guinness World Records Limited 2021 ]

We have seen endless UFO clear videos and images, and none impress me. But when we employ military grade scientific instruments, along with military trained expert eyewitnesses, I will take that over a million clear UFO videos and images any day of the week.

I agree that none of the "images" of alleged UFOs are convincing.  I disagree
however that any/all of these images or videos are "clear".  They're universally
indistinct, out of focus, pixellated, and ill-defined; and certainly provide zero
evidence as to what exactly they represent.

I'd be interested in seeing any clear images that're available, as the only ones
I've ever seen are totally crap quality.    Links please.

You are mis-quoting me. I think this was Free replying to me.

[Mr Greene]

His point that aliens would almost certainly look completely different is still apt.

Presumably.  But there's also the possibility that evolution on another planet would converge on similar solutions.

I agree.  In order to take advantage of higher intelligence, organisms would need to have better mobility and dexterity than other organisms.  Moving around and being able to manipulate the environment by creating and building structures seems to me to have been achieved efficiently with the two-armed, bipedal structure of the apes.  Any more limbs or appendages would probably not be as energy efficient and therefore not favoured by evolution.

The atmosphere was mentioned in this discussion.  We have evolved in an atmosphere that supplies essential oxygen for respiration.  Had the atmosphere contained less, then our lungs may have evolved differently to cope.  They struggle now as evidenced by people moving to higher altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner.  On the other hand, more oxygen in the atmosphere would be detrimental to life.  Oxygen supports combustion, so an atmosphere richer in oxygen would cause events like bushfires to be even more devastating than they are even now.  Such an environment may not even allow anything but basic organisms to survive and thrive.

There are so many environmental factors that are involved in directing the path of evolution that speculating on what life-forms may have arisen out there should not lead to the assumption that there should be things 'like' us.  Even if they are out there, I reckon the chance that they are within cooee of us and also have the appropriate  technoolgy to find us is exceedingly small.

Not entirely accurate. O2 levels peaked during the Carboniferous period at 35% allowing the evolution of colossal arthropods.


These died out because our reduced O2 levels can't support them.

We have 4 limbs because the fish we evolved from had 4 fins that could be repurposed to support the body of the first amphibians.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Unidentified fishy object?

[Dānu]

Unfinished Fannysizing Outloud

[Aegon]

Interesting interview with NASA chief Bill Nelson, the whole thing is cool but the part relevant to this thread starts at 53:40....

[Inkubus]

Interesting interview with NASA chief Bill Nelson, the whole thing is cool but the part relevant to this thread starts at 53:40....

I've no idea who Bill Nelson is but he's not looking close enough.

What those navy pilots saw in 2004 and 300 siteings since then...

No. The pilots didn't see anything it was the latest state of the art cameras that made the observations. Observations that pilots and others then and now, misinterpret.

[SYZ]

...The pilots didn't see anything, it was the latest state of the art cameras that made the observations. Observations that pilots and others then and now, misinterpret.

Exactly.  Just like you and me, pilots aren't trained specifically in identifying
alien spacecraft.  Any civilian's interpretation is just as valid as any pilot's.

I've yet to see even one image of a comprehensively identifiable, alleged alien
spacecraft.  Nobody here has yet posted one, but I'm open to seeing any.

And if anyone uses this crappy, out of focus, monochromatic image as evidence
of UFO activity, then I have a cheap riverfront block of land I can sell them LOL.

[Aegon]

I posted that to see if you guys honestly thought you knew better than the administrator of NASA. Apparently you do!

Any civilian's interpretation is just as valid as any pilot's.

Lmaooo

[Inkubus]

I posted that to see if you guys honestly thought you knew better than the administrator of NASA. Apparently you do!

Yes he was an administrator, a lifelong administrator and politician not an engineer. He was once sent on a jolly to the space station as a payload specialist (deck hand) and that's it.
Most of his time now is spent taking part in puff pieces for NASA.
At what point did he state the best explanation for those sightings are likely to be alien visitors?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And going back to a point I raised long ago, WWII pilots often misidentified the aircraft they'd shot down -- meaning they were within 300 or so yards of them and turning roughly the same speed, most of the time. This is a much better sighting circumstance than what has been claimed -- and those pilots had extensive training on identifying aircraft both friendly and enemy. Sometimes the victim couldn't be identified even when watching he gun-camera footage after the fact.

Now increase the speed by many, many times, the range by miles, and interstice a sensor system that may or may not be functioning right and may or may not be detecting in its optimal wavelength, may or may not have had recent maintenance, and may or may not have the resolution to provide a sharp image.

Being able to identify an unidentified aircraft aloft from your own a/c is not so cut-and-dried as is being portrayed here.

[skyking]

I have misidentified and simply missed an embarrassing number of aircraft over the years. It happens.