Yea it is also called Kundalini. I can only tell that i also have experienced some stuff in my life that rejects idea that we know everything. How can we know everything if we only use 10% of our brain?

I don't know about moving objects but you can try - watch this. It looks easy to achieve but "easier said than done".
There has to be life on other planets regardless how intelligent they are compared to us. And not just because we have alien related movies like "Transformers" but out of logic and common sense - see introduction post video about how tiny we are compared to universe|multiverse. Afterall we are aliens aswell to other planets.

Just think about it: How come only humans evolved so much despite living on same planet in same conditions with related living creatures? There has to be some third-party intervention!

So your argumentation seriously is: "I can't explain it, therefore: Aliens"?

That is a very long time in evolution terms. That is one group of folks that fascinate me.
Especially the genome project that may settle a few issues in this thread.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...anderthalensis

So we were not the only humans on this planet at one time. There were lots of off shoots.
Some evolved (according to some). Some did not.
Still waiting to drink a cold beer and hang out with big foot.

But I don't blame bigfoot for being a recluse. People are such, well you know.
Some folks believe bigfoot is another alien species.

http://www.native-languages.org/maya-legends.htm

Dr Andy SixKiller Clark

The evolution is quite strange.

People can explain based on evolution things.
Did you see animal armagedon serie on youtube? This is evolution.

however, this picture means that there were super-humans, which existed : http://postimg.org/image/603wla1p3/
The tallest humans were 2.73 mm tall. Max, not more.

Why sumerians always talked about some greater gods. Maybe it was just their religion; to believe in a god.

A DNA sample would be even cooler. Imagine that.

Yeah, I think it's very unlikely that we're alone in the Universe, being it as huge as it is and given the massive amount of stars and planets out there. However, I also find it hard to believe that the aliens have visited our planet any time.

DNA would be fantastic !
If it is actually real. Maybe it is just some photoshop, no?

I could only find this:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-...sed-incredible

Yeah, they are still trying to figure out how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachapoya_culture ended up in Latin America also.

This was before the Spanish landed in the Americas and took all knowledge back to Papal Rome to be locked away.

Pictures

Edit: Bet you did not know that the underground tunnels in the Ancient Aztec City in Mexico City are lined With Mica. A insulator used when dealing with
electricity. Mica is not a native local mineral they could get just to use as
wallpaper for a tunnel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6075694.html

quite nice.
http://www.earthcircuit.org/wp-conte...-as-it-was.jpg
It reminds me the himalayan culture. The Evolution.

Anyhow, they were pretty / very clever at that time.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/cart...achapoya/1159/
We might just underestimate them. Materials, metals, ... were quite mastered I would say.


There are thousand mysteries on planet earth and in our solar system.


Anyhow I believe that most of it might be explained by physics.

Giant can be explained by anomaly during replication of DNA. It can be fairly explained.
http://hiddenincatours.com/wp-conten...ntal-giant.jpg
This is why species evolved luckily. Tall humans quite be explained.

Anyhow, all died, which shows that no one is immortal, and law of physics aren't changed.
(except some another strange things: immortal cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)

I still believe that those guys could have live 250 years old. Another genetic change.

Ping Arcane - Are you Bi-Polar or something? You seem to putter along pretty OK for a bit and then just go utter whacko on us from time to time.

If you learn nothing else at LQ please try to wrap your head around these 2 things

1) Fictional movies are not proof of anything other than human imagination. Youtube videos unsupported by serious references are likely trolling or agenda ridden and do not constitute scientific inquiry let alone expertise. Wikipedia is better but not by orders of magnitude.

2) The "10% of out brain" thing is hogwash.... an Urban Myth at best and has no place in adult discussion.

He was very probably kidding.

I just watched again his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryGR06dlPf0
It is really amazing what kind of videos (everything and nothing, garbage,...) one can find on youtube.


"10% of our brain". I wonder if in 500 years, we gonna be more intelligent. The bigger brain does not mean being more clever.
Humans still get taller so it might be possible.

I just saw a green fireball meteor in the sky while driving on high-way.

The problem is that it did go very horizontally (like a plane going). Is it possible?

It looked like this -but very horizontal, and vanished after 15 seconds:
http://img.youtube.com/vi/AOU3r3Q4-eY/0.jpg

it looked green on the head and orange and long on the tail.

Assuming that you were in middle Europe at that time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...d-Austria.html

you got it so fast. wow!

Is it a Nickel based meteorit that gives its green colors? Can it reach earth?

Once again you pointed out what i was saying - people don't read everything! No i'm not Bi-Polar because truth is unBIASed which means real truth seeker can't take sides because truth only has one face. Besides small dose of trolling|countertrolling gets discussion rolling further.

1) I never said that but Hollywood has this thing - they mix truth with lies so you can't claim all of that stuff is BS. Some of it might actually be real deal. Working with ideas is great too because you don't lose your imagination and creativity.
2) And how do you know? Were you there when humanity was born? Most myths and legends were truth back in day - some were changed but some were not.

If we won't ask questions and|or explore deeper than average we won't get answers!

@Arcane - Thank you for your reasonable reply. I hope you didn't take the Bi-Polar question as a flame since it was not meant that way.
It is a difficult condition but some amazing work and even breakthroughs have occurred during the manic phase of some of those afflicted. I actually was just expressing my wonder at how you can go along for a bit quite reasonably and logical and then suddenly take off on a flight of fancy and quote/link youtube videos (often for real tinfoil hat videos) as some sort of supporting evidence.

Nobody could reasonably argue against asking questions but half the work to getting to a valuable answer is asking the RIGHT questions. There is no value in asking if pink elephants on Neptune can fly when the weather is just right.

There seems to be some disconnect for you between concrete and abstract. For example, what manner of question is

To me this implies you require 1st hand experience in order to come to a fruitful conclusion - concrete. The bulk of our great body of knowledge is exactly about things beyond a single human lifetime and it comes from evidence, testing, deductive reasoning, and peer review - abstract.

I applaud active imagination and a childlike sense of wonder. These are important and powerful motivators. It is equally important to know the boundaries between Science and speculation.

Soon be another documentary to watch about this idea - Unacknowledged is coming soon.

My dad was in SAC <Strategic Air Command> handling nukes back in the 1960's.

So I did not drink the weather balloon koolaid when it was fed to the public.

Others may think they are the end all, be all, of the mass of stars floating out in space.
I just do not happen to be one of them.

The likelihood that Extraterrestrial Life exists is increasingly higher. The likelihood of what we would consider Intelligent Life, somewhat smaller. The likelihood that we originated from, or that any aliens have ever visited Earth is unimaginably small. Both Distance and Time play a huge part in this problem. The two competing concepts are The Drake Equation and The Fermi Paradox but it is important to note that both involve substantial speculation. The point is, there is no real evidence yet. It's just speculation, interesting and fun, but not at all solid.

You are limiting yourself somewhat to what you know and what has been taught to you.
Machines and Clones aren't limited to

Our robotics and cloning has come a long way in a short amount of time. Like I said. You are kinda limiting yourself < I mean this in a nice way >. Me being untaught and not programmed to think in a certain way. Well. I guess I am too dumb to know my limitations.

No problem, rokytnji, it is absolutely true that I limit myself,,, consciously in fact, but that includes "what has been taught to me". I need to experience something more than mere "authority" to be convinced a thing is likely. I consider such limitations an investment - lose some things but for a net gain.

I have my doubts about clones role in Space, but there is a very real and distinct likelihood that humans will opt out of deep Space travel and leave it to machines since the technology to improve them is advancing faster than the technology to make it viable for humans. It has not gone unnoticed that even NASA has greatly reduced investment in studying how to improve craft and it's speed to suit humans and instead rely on the "lesser resistance" of using machines.

It is just food for thought. Goal should be to get from current point A to truth(point B).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxpM_UF2II

Well, after this rain jag lets up locally.

My next motorcycle trip plan is doing the Marfa lights. It gets good around this time of year.

Then climb the mountain on my motorcycle to McDonald Oservatory.

Then maybe later this summer. Scoot on up to Roswell to hit the Dairy Queen and play tourista.

Some more infolinks for those who not seek about this on their own.
World War with Aliens if they attack but personally they might come to help or already are here..unknown agenda. Also it could be why all ancient structures are synchronized..Some beings wanted it to be like that but there was no unified system of communication and logistics back in those days.

Not going crazy with it but it is ludicrous to think we are alone in the universe. The distances and size of the space we float around in is beyond our comprehension so like the movie "Contact": would be an awful waste of space :) (pun intended!)

@Arcane - Please do yourself a favor and see this --- Definition of "woo-woo" --- Stay away from the Woo other than for mere entertainment value. It's literally designed as a scam to deceive.

Example - It is valid to assume there is some connection between why so many cultures constructed pyramids and that connection is Physics. When all you have is stone and wood the ONLY way to build tall in Earth's gravity is... yup, getting progressively smaller area as you go up. You can test this by letting sand fall from your palm. The result is always conical in shape.

@sevendogsbsd - I don't think any reasonably educated person thinks "There is NO Life in the Universe but here". Anyone with any brains and education recognizes that the odds are pretty high that somewhere, at some time, other lifeforms are likely to have existed or will exist. It may even turn out to be utterly commonplace. However it also stands to reason, based on what we know so far, that what we consider to be Intelligence is likely substantially more rare. The next step down is Intelligence leading to Technology which our own (admittedly limited) experience shows simple lifeforms vastly outweigh Intelligent ones and of those only extremely few even use tools.

That is likely in our view because we see it all around us, including the building blocks of Life essentially everywhere we look, so that's pretty solid reasoning. Beyond that is mere speculation because anything more, including interstellar travel, we have yet to see at all. We don't even yet know if Interstellar Travel is actually and physically possible especially if other intelligent beings measure their lifespans in a few hundred years or less. It is glorious and exciting to imagine it but it is only that - Imagination, so far.

Absolutely. Also, just because it hasn't been officially announced that another lifeform hasn't got the necessary technology to reach this planet, it doesn't mean there is no other lifeform that does have such technology.

There HAVE been a number of incidents in many countries that really put a lot of doubt on the ideas that; a) we are all alone in the universe, and b) that no other intelligent lifeform has the technology to get to this planet from very far away. And to me personally it's VERY small minded thinking that particularly the first idea there is actually true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO

...just to name a few.

of course (alien) life exists somewhere in the universe!
i cannot say anything about it being intelligent, because i am intelligent enough to recognize that i would be unable to assess their intelligence.

claiming anything else is tantamount to saying things like "our religion is the only true religion" or "the human race has been favored by god and is, therefore, god-like" or things like that.

i recently listened to an interview with 4 scientists specialising in finding extra-terrestrial life, and surprisingly only 2 of them said "i believe 100%, there is life somewhere out there". weird. but i guess that's a scientist's mind in a nutshell for you.

Maybe the other two set their threshold for "belief" higher than those two.

One of my school chemistry teachers taught us that atomic theory would only ever be a theory because the nature of our senses meant we could never have primary evidence of the existence of atoms. (Some impressive images of 'atoms' were already published, but they were sufficiently removed from direct observation to be considered secondary.) I'll stick my neck out and say I think most chemists believe in atoms, but you could probably find some who'll tell you they don't.


Hmm, I thought I'd posted this before, but can't find it:

but this is fundamentally different from "believing in aliens".
imo, it would be incredibly self-centered to believe that we are the only ones who succeedded with life etc. - esp. given the vastness of the universe.
or are you disputing that what we are seeing through all those telescopes might not be other planets, suns, star systems, galaxies?

or maybe they are trying all the time, and we're just too stupid to recognize it?

on topic: Laurie Anderson - Mach 20
;)

Just found a VERY interesting video in the following link below. It doesn't just talk about witness accounts, but Police Officers that have witnessed UFO's, in multiple countries. This police officer was also testifying at National Press Club. It's the first video in that same link below.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...18183457766317

^ just for the record, this is NOT what I'm talking about when I say "belive in aliens".
For me there's a huuuuge difference between believing that (intelligent) life exists elsewhere in the universe, and believing that they visited planet earth (and usually the story then continues "but nobody believes me and the XYZ and ZYX are trying to shut me up").

And nobody is saying that they are one of the same thing - I'm sure there is a big difference between the two. But it certainly (and as said before) is very possible that aliens do indeed have the technology to reach this planet. And once again, there HAVE been a number of incidents all over the world that strongly suggest at least some aliens do indeed have such technology.

But like there are some very small minded people that believe nonsense like "we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe", there are people that seem to think that another intelligent lifeform could not possibly be more technologically advanced that us humans. Not to mention people that seem to think that we know all there is to know about science, even some that admit themselves that science is a constant process of learning new things, improving our knowledge, and re-evaluating what we THINK we already know.

The other point of course is that it also depends on how you define "intelligent". You could consider a dog to be "intelligent", in that: you can teach a dog to sit, understand words like it's name, etc, but good luck teaching it to program a computer, it's just not going to happen. But I certainly would think (and at least hope) that their WOULD alien races somewhere out there in the universe that WOULD be far more advanced than us humans - probably in every way imaginable - well, if they are smart enough not to get too close to us, then I think that proves they have at least some brains/intelligence.

Actually we don't really know if "it is very possible" that ANY mass, let alone lifeforms can even achieve let alone survive the speeds (or other energy requirements) necessary to travel interstellar distances. We know from particle accelerators that even material as small as protons at relativistic speeds tend to annihilate each other upon chance collision.

The fasted manned craft built by humans, Apollo 10, managed 0.004% (that's 0.00004 of light speed). Do the math. Just to reach 10% light speed (assuming not only the energy required to get there but that microscopic debris wouldn't turn it instantly into Swiss cheese) is going 2500 times as fast.

At 10% (0.1) Light Speed our very nearest stellar neighbor would require a 40 year trip utterly discounting the time and other requirements to slow back down. Considering that, it could be as much as 80 years. There are other life risks we don't even know about yet but the ones we do know about are daunting enough that anyone actually in the know does not know if it even can be possible, ever, at least for anything more complex than sub-atomic particles. We've been capable of survivable atmospheric flight of almost 18,000 mph with returning Space Shuttle Columbia but that is at the limits of what not only we, but what materials can manage. There is in fact a limit to how fast mass can travel in an atmosphere without disintegrating and we don't know for certain that does not also exist in Space. Space is not empty.

Speculation is fun but it is just that... speculation. Regarding "intelligent alien" speculation I think it is extremely speculative to imagine we can understand each other. The recent film Arrival plays a bit with this concept. Closer to home, Dr. Lilly spent years trying to develop communication with dolphins who are possibly more intelligent, in their own adapted way, than humans, but still "born and bred" loosely on the same planetary conditions as we. He failed. Some pretty spectacular results with apes and chimps have been accomplished but all of them are less successful than communicating with a 4 year old human. Consider that there is only 1% difference in DNA between humans and chimps and then consider aliens may not even have DNA, may not even be carbon-based.

The best speculation I have ever come across regarding alien life forms is this novel https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1551277.Sounding where the protagonist is an old sperm whale who ponders the difference between the intelligence of Orcas, Dolphins, other Whales, and Homo Sapiens. It's a great book and a real shame it's not more widely read.

I haven't read the whole of this thread (tl;dr) so I may be duplicating someone else's post, but what we now know about the early stages of evolution makes complex life forms rather less likely than we used to think.

Intelligent life has to be multicellular and multicellular life has to be eukaryotic. Prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) are not going to produce intelligence. But we know now that eukaryotes evolved through two rather unlikely events:

1) An archaian (not a bacterium but something outwardly rather similar) shucked off its outer capsule, enabling it to grow to amoeba size. Some modern bacteria do this too, but they don't grow any bigger, probably because the "amoeba" ecological slot is already taken. This entity could now feed on other archaeans and bacteria in the same way that amoebas do: by putting out "fingers" of protoplasm and grabbing them.

2) This archaean grabbed and ate a bacterium which had learned to cope with high oxygen levels. It carried an atom of iron with which it reduced the oxygen to water, in the process liberating the solar energy that had been used to create it from water in the first place. Instead of digesting this bacterium, the archaean host kept it alive as an internal symbiont. It multiplied within its host and the host's offspring inherited these symbionts. Result: free energy supplies and the ability to survive oxygen poisoning. Huge success! Eventually host and symbionts integrated and became eukaryotic cells with a nucleus and mitochondria. And later these gave rise to multicellular life.

Prokaryotic life in the universe may be common enough; the organic building materials are certainly common. It might not be that rare for a prokaryote to lose its capsule and start living an amoeba-like life. But the second stage is so unlikely that I doubt if has happened twice in the same galaxy. Unless of course there is a God who brings about such things.

enorbet, with all respect, if we are going to continue to debate based on the bubble of "what we currently know as far science is concerned", then there is not much point in even discussing it.

So a couple of points;

1) We once again DON'T know all there is to know.

2) If you are telling me that I should ignore any and all eyewitness accounts that describe things that "what we currently know about science" cannot explain, then I'm really sorry, but no, it's with all respect (and I'm not calling yourself a fool), a fool's argument to say "based on the limited amount of information we currently know, it's not possible or is unlikely to be possible", so you can keep talking about "light speed" all you want. It's still does not mean "it's not possible or is unlikely to be possible". I'd suggest you have a look at this, as that video seems to say very different, and bear in mind the person in that video does in fact explain why "light speed" has nothing to do with it when one has the right technology.

3) If you expect me to ignore what credible people have said, from all walks of life and government, at some point or another, including serving police officers who have no reason to lie about such things, and every reason NOT to say anything at all, then I'm sorry, but no, I cannot, and will not. Let alone what I've seen with my own two eyes, particularly when it would be far easier if I was actually just imagining it - I wish I was, but it was no imagination, that I can promise you if I can promise you nothing else.

So keep ignoring what would be called evidence in a court of law, I'm not fooled.

Well, hazel, Even at a billion to one odds that could be hundreds or even thousands of higher forms just in this one galaxy of hundreds of billions. The truly huge factor is Time. At most "humans" (including rather distant ancestors) walked around now for 8 million years. Simple sponges have been around relatively unchanged for roughly 600 million years hile Cyanobacteria has managed 2,800 million years. Obviously we have no evidence that higher forms last longer or that intelligence is necessarily an attribute important to longevity. It may well be that species tend not to survive technology... or combine with it and evolve beyond recognition and our understanding.

I love this grand perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar . It's quite humbling and triumphant all at the same time, as well as a mind boggling vision of "the Vast Ocean of Time" .

Hello jsbjsb001. I should make it clear that I am in no way doubting that you have seen something you can't explain, but those last three words should be emboldened capitalized italics, assuming you're not trying to tell me you actually met alien creatures from some other world, let alone abducted and probed. As you have stated, people see Unidentified Flying Objects with some regularity so I have no problem with that as far as that goes. In the latter case, NOT unidentified or unidentifiable but absolutely identified such as actual physical meetings with extraterrestrials I would question your state of mind leading up to that event. Most such accounts are from people abruptly awakened from sleep, not a particularly good time for perception, let alone critical thinking. The odds and the evidence are not good at all.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a good job on this subject... entertaining but also quite accurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69qYusZyLrs

If there was any aliens involved, I certainly don't recall that part, so I can therefore only assume that I did not see any. But for one thing, it does not mean that the craft I saw did not have any aboard it, and without restating my account that I already have stated in the UFO thread I started, given it most certainly was not any human built aircraft, let alone a "weather balloon" or other such things, then I do however find it to be a reasonable assumption that what I did in fact see could well have and probably did have aliens on-board it - just because as far as I know, I didn't see any, this does not mean there wasn't any on-board. It most certainly would have had occupants on-board it, and I doubt they would have been human based on what I did see.

Also, it doesn't mean you're "crazy" if one honestly did see a real alien. Just because one see's something unusual and/or strange, this does not make them "crazy". I've been almost asleep and still been able to install stuff on my computer, and alike, no problem, even learn stuff too. So I would be very careful about calling someone "crazy", or saying something to the effect of "well you weren't awake enough to know what you saw or didn't see". I was wide awake at the time I saw what I did, for the record, hadn't even had a pain killer that night, let alone anything stronger than that.

You really should watch the video I linked above for you, as it certainly does explain why what you're saying about "light speed" and such doesn't matter, and it is science based, not just someone saying "they've seen a UFO". So unless you can provide good reason as to why the science mentioned in that video is somehow flawed, well I think it explains why we don't have the required technology to be able to travel vast distances in space. It also explains that space is not indeed empty, anymore than the air we breathe here on Earth, and alike.

i forgot to add one term to my 2 previous posts:
anthropocentric.
how can we apply scientific rules, our human ways of looking at things, to determine how to define intelligence and how likely it is subsequently that such exists elsewhere?
yet scientists do exactly that all the time.
science, by definition, cannot look up from its perpetual navel gazing.

and my views are, by definition, unscientific.

i hope you listened to the video i linked earlier! it includes sperm whales ;)

Hello again jsbjsb001. Please help me out here. Are you referring to the Huffington Post article you linked regarding the Citizen Hearings on Disclosure? I must apologize for not following it earlier but I didn't realize it was for me. I spent time on it and follow ups (many were greyed out and inactive today though) and I didn't see anything about why "light speed and such doesn't matter" nor any science. I'd very much like to see that so if it was a different link could you please direct me? Thank you in advance.

Ondoho I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Science and scientists. I'm sure you realize that but I want to emphasize it since it very often gets blurred and the distinction is very important. Scientists being human are, as you say, subject to navel gazing nearly as much as any other large group of people... some more than others. Science, however, in the long term is not. This trickles down to scientists in differing degrees but it is actually a common occurrence that areas of study worked on for many decades, where individuals have devoted their whole professional lives to a specific field of study and "what if?" only to have it disappear in a single instant.

Some like Fred Hoyle just like you point out cannot stop even as evidence keeps mounting, often for decades, and they end up ruining or at least "soiling" otherwise brilliant careers as was the case with Sir Fred. Many others however, though understandably crestfallen to say the least, have no problem with moving on. This happens more frequently in recent times because of the increase in power of our tools and the increase in communication globally and how quickly things are changing.

You can actually witness some cases of this as they happen because they have been candidly recorded. The data collected in LHC's search and subsequent discovery of the Higgs Boson threatened and did finally trash whole branches of Theoretical Physics. A single event caught by the ESA's Integral Space Observatory killed whole branches of Speculative Mathematical research, most regarding The Holographic Principle but also vast regions of study to find if Gravity is Quantum in nature... Huge impact!

Many of these people had spent 20-40 years developing their theories and in one afternoon their life's work just evaporated before their eyes. Their choice is to move on in Science or get out of the field altogether. See? In this manner Science cultivates personalities that are not only resilient to change, but expect them and are able to move on graciously with only the knowledge that they did good work and helped define what a thing is not, which is of course also important if less celebrated, especially in the Public Eye.

A lot of public perspective that not only scientists, but Science itself, indulges in "navel gazing" is created by PopSci, or journalists seeking an eye-grabbing headline for a subject they barely understand themselves and because in Journalism things need to be, or at least seem, both sensational and Black& White. Real Science is quite the antithesis of that. The video of Dr. Tyson's interview that I linked in post #238 above expands on that in a very clear but also entertaining manner (as is his custom) so I hope you watched that.

No, I wasn't referring to that link, that just talks about eyewitness accounts of UFO's (from some very credible people that once again have zero reason to "make stuff up"). The link below was exactly what I was talking about - I linked it in post #236. But I will ask you to focus on the science, and not the person in the video, as this is very important. I must say that as un-expert as I am in such scientific related matters, from the research I've done about, it does seem to stack up. I can also say that I've watched that same video at least a few times now, and I cannot see anything that seems to be questionable or incorrect about it. But please review it for yourself, and once again pay very close attention to the scientific principles being talked about within, not the person talking about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSgxqfJSGX0

I'll very interested to hear from you about the above video.

enorbet, i did mean science itself.

science cannot, by definition, acknowledge things that are beyond (our current) science.

i admit that's a little extreme, and you rightly pioint out that scientists have been pushing the boundaries of science time and again, and science itself has grown.

but (imo) the ability to recognize alien life is not just beyond the current boundaries, but way, way further away.
science does not leap like that.
but the human mind can, by simply accepting it as the most likely scenario, without having any tools to prove it.

I don't think i'm being "popsci" by saying that (and i have in fact very little interest in any infotainment BS that might promote these views in a "scientific" way).
for me it's really a philosophical thing, a question of belief (but not in any religious or deist way).

_____________
my previous post for reference:

That is indeed a fascinating video and it will take me some time to fully digest and research. It is always complicated to research and digest things which right from Jump Street assert things with "difficult access". This can be built on actual accidental loss like some of the Apollo Program losses or a calculated device for deception by con artists and woo salesmen. Since the very nature of Area 51 let alone S4 are speculation to all but a very few that causes severe difficulty immediately. That Mr. Lazar's claims of credentials cannot be verified despite MIT explaining how it is impossible for records to be expunged is another "gotcha". It is also problematic to consider how a man with such a high degree of scientific expertise and contacts to have been employed at a Top Secret Military Scientific Project would ever be so lacking for a high paying, low risk job to ever have to resort to prostitution.

All that aside thankfully one area that was unavailable for testing at the time that video was produced and an important fundamental part of his assertions is Element 115, now is available for study. On first viewing I wondered why such an element would produce antimatter in the first place but now that Element 115 (Muscovium) has been synthesized it turns out that it actually does! It creates Positrons. That could possibly be used to produce prodigious amounts of energy should we ever be able to produce sufficient quantities of the stable version of Muscovium which has a half life of 1200 years.

However one really problematic issue for me right from the start was Lazar's referring to the Strong Interaction Force that bonds atomic nuclei as "Gravity A". There is zero evidence that anything remotely like gravity is at work within atomic nuclei or that it ever "extends beyond the surface of a nucleus, even that of Element 115.

Even if we don't concern ourselves with that differentiation and for a moment assume this force can behave in some manner to create a gravity field (though highly unlikely) then we have to consider just what manner of amplification device could amplify such a force to do any work and what work could it accomplish if we did? Lazar uses a demonstration of an audio signal being amplified by an electrically powered amplifying device to demonstrate how some waves can be amplified. However he never asks the question nor demonstrates the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room. No known amplifier is or even CAN BE over 100% efficient or we would have the proverbial Pertpetual Motion Machine. We always have to put some percentage more power in to get somewhat less power out. This is why every electrical appliance we own that outputs say 100 watts requires 120-200 watts input power. TANSTAAFL right?

On top of all this I have to wonder exactly what would happen if we were indeed able to create an "intense gravity field" anywhere near any other field. We know that our Moon is kept in orbit by the mutual attraction yet their incredible masses don't create field sufficient to warp Spacetime enough to cause them to come crashing together. So if, however we might even imagine it could be accomplished, a device billions of times less massive could actually create a far greater intensity of gravity what would happen? How would we control what exact region of Spacetime is folded and what is not in order to end up at only one desired destination? ... or does he propose his aliens just accept many planets and stars colliding together as an acceptable cost of space travel? Just imagine a Black Hole coming near our solar system and apparently that gravitational field is insufficient to fold Spacetime anywhere near even four light years, so just how intense must this field be? and what are the consequences of that should it be possible for anyone to create such a monster?

For these reasons, so far anyway, I find Mr. Lazar's video highly suspect but I will reserve judgment until I look into this further.

Most likely scenario based on what if not "tools to prove it"?

IMHO that's not PopSci but it's even less credible. It isn't any kind of Science at all, Pop or otherwise. At the very least it is jumping to conclusions. I think Dr. Tyson explains it very well when he says "If you say 'I saw something I can't explain.' that conversation is over." You can't immediately follow "I can't explain it" by "explaining" it.

This isn't to say that Science stands anywhere near the idea that alien life does not exist. Science sees the odds as pretty damned good!... or we wouldn't be devoting many many Man/Hours in many fields trying to discover it. I truly hope that we do discover some before I die. It's pretty high on the old bucket list but I'm not going to assume anything without evidence. Conflating wishes with reality is resorting to Magick and all instances of that I know of are just illusions.

enorbet, I'll make a couple of points;

* I can't force anyone to believe anything, it's always going to be up to each and every person decide for themselves what, if anything they believe or don't believe - only you can make that decision.

* I do realize that we are not talking about something "normal" (or at least that's normal to us humans - it's not), so it would not be reasonable to expect anyone to "just believe it". And this is not what I'm trying to do or expect. I must say that, sure, I would very much like to believe him, I really would, BUT believe it or not, I do try and force myself to remember that as much as it COULD be true, it might not be too. So I do understand your point there, I honestly do. I would be more worried if you had said something like, "oh really, WOW! They had a UFO from aliens!!! I guess I was wrong for not believing you...", let's face it, it's very difficult to "just believe" at face value, and that I will totally agree with you on, it is.

* I think you have a very good point in that; when we are talking about something that was/is supposedly a "secret government project", that access to ALL related information is next to, if not impossible, which as you point out makes it very difficult to work out what the exact truth is. That I have to also agree with you on, and do, and is a very good point to make.

* Regarding his "degrees"; I think you are wrong in saying that "records cannot be expunged/deleted". If you are talking about a highly classified (and that's a very important term BTW) government project, anything in relation to that would in fact be very possible. Classified records the government themselves have in a least some countries (including my own) are in fact deleted after a period of time. It also does not explain why Lazar is actually listed in records for Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, as well as other records, which DO confirm that he had in fact worked there. As far as I know, Lazar hasn't sought to profit from his story, and from what I've seen has stayed pretty silent about it for a good 25 years, that does not sound like someone looking for fame, let alone and at the very least profit.

* Regarding Element 115 and amplifiers; remember that we are talking about an element and amplifiers that are supposedly from another world, so I don't think you can say that we have the knowledge to understand enough to make a lot of comment about that, let alone enough information about either to have an informed opinion about either. You said it yourself "no known amplifiers", the key word there is "known", as in, we don't know the exact science behind that yet, so I wouldn't act like we somehow do, we don't - same with what you say about "not having any evidence about "gravity within atomic nuclei", so I'd suggest we don't deny anything that might be true, until we can say it "could not be true full stop period", until we do know that for fact, for the same reason as above. Yes, you could say the same in the opposite way, I understand that, but it's pretty easy to take what could very well be the truth (NOT saying that means it IS the truth) and twist it to suit your own argument - so just bear that in mind before jumping to too many conclusions I would suggest.

I realize you said you were still researching what was said in that video, and please do, I'm not trying to influence you by any means. But please do take the time to properly understand exactly what he COULD have meant, not just what we currently know about science. It's probably more important to see if based on the scientific principles we ARE aware of, if it COULD have any basis, rather than trying to confirm or deny particular details, if that makes sense.

I've also found another video about Lazar that might help fill in some blinks for you, and that I found interesting myself. While it does cover some things about UFO's it's more about the story from the beginning and the impact the story has had since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1b6pOTJ08

based on the assumption that the opposite (we're the only planet in the whole universe to ever develop life) is much, much less likely.
nothing else. no facts, no proof, no theories. sorry.

Some of the most interesting things I've seen online have been of what are supposed to be structures on the Moon and Mars and other strange Mars areas that look like forests or life forms of some kind. I spent quite a bit of time looking at and watching movies about that type of thing in general when I first got online. I saw the film clips and documentaries on Bob Lazar and you can hardly separate him from John Lear. Both have interesting backgrounds and stories to tell.

But John Lear lost all credibility IMO with his claim of a "soul catcher" on the Moon and that info supposedly came from Bob Lazar:

There should be youtube videos about it. I'm not going to drill down further than that article because it eventually leads to the the same place they think demons and demi-gods akin to the Old Ones in an H.P. Lovecraft story are going to inhabit robot bodies and bring about Biblical End Time Prophesy.

All bots love jitte.

As a side note, I met Big Daddy Don Garlits of racing fame years ago on a UFO type board at GeoCities and he told me he believed the moon was hollow. I asked him if he wasn't worried what people would think about him saying that and he said he couldn't care less. He was already old and famous and after all, he was Big Daddy Don Garlits.

I think it is fair to say that no security is stronger than during wartime and some of the tightest security that has ever existed was effected surrounding the Manhattan Project. Despite huge concerns over Oppenheimer's loyalty there is no confusion over his role there and certainly not his education background including whatever degrees from which Universities, despite the fact that he was under some of the most severe scrutiny due to his political affiliation. There are a few Cold War examples, like the Yugoslavian rocket scientists that were secretly pulled from their homes and families telling them they'd died (phony funerals were held) and brought to the US, but even that didn't stop one Yugoslavian scientist from meeting his daughter he'd never gotten to know, decades later. That level of secrecy was possible mainly because the scientists were not born nor educated and working in the US. Even being from a Communist country didn't erase where he worked and went to school, who he married, etc.

MIT is only one of the degrees Lazar has listed and they deny he ever went there, let alone received any degree, and furthermore denies that it is even possible to erase all records of who went to school there let alone received a degree(s). This is just one of the degrees Lazar claims to have earned but anyone one of them not panning out is enough to spoil the whole bunch. Surely you can see the odds that he simply lied outweigh complete erasure massively.

There is a large club of ex-Area 51 workers ( http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.com/ ) that have met from time to time for many years and now they are allowed some freedom to speak on some subjects. A considerable amount of CIA and Area 51 information has been declassified and large numbers of scientists are now pretty well known to have worked there but none of them has a passkey card saying anything that reveals their location unlike Lazar who asserts he worked ant the even higher security S4 location. As hard as it is to prove they worked there, they do have declassified photos of themselves on what was then secret projects and NONE of them has had their background erased and for a very simple reason. It is far more secure to simply misdirect than it is to suddenly disappear. People don't think twice about "Yeah, I work at Fort Dix" but raise eyebrows when whole families disappear and records are destroyed, unless you imagine people who originally handled those records were also destroyed, and then you can see it just goes logarithmic. Again, Lazar just doesn't at all fit the pattern of any known secrecy workers. None.

As for his silence and motivation, I can only speculate in ways hopefully consistent with other known human motivations and methods. Lazar seems not only articulate but in possession of a thorough, bright and calculating, organized mind. It's quite possible he is aware that once a case is made and seen to have a growing impact, it's better to not say anything more and not add to or deviate from the original story exactly because some of it (less now, 30 years later) was impossible to scrutinize. Adding or changing only increases risk.

I haven't researched if he has made substantial money from this story yet but I can't deny it is very likely an excellent retirement program. Perhaps more important is the second part of that Fortune and Fame deal. His name, face, and story are now known by millions of people all over the world. His name will be ringing out for a long time. That is huge motivation for some but that unfortunately includes some really smart serial killers who just want to go down in history as in the top few of some widely recognized category, even if that category is despicable to some, even most others. Bottom line is I can't know his motivation. All I can do is try to apply Science that I do know to his story and see what shakes out. Speaking of that the remark regarding stable isotopes has already been addressed ie: an isotope with a half life of 1200 years but that is not the big hole.

The biggest holes are (1) what would really happen if such a thing actually did exist, a device to create an intense gravity field, and (2) let number 1 really sink, see the expanded comments below for number 1 in and see what may be the coup de gras at the end of this post.

Whether or not he or anyone ever worked with Element 115 whose source was "another world" that doesn't change the fact that we now have Element 115 and the source doesn't matter one whit. That's part of the definition of "Element". FWIW the reason that I used "no known amplifiers" is because it breaks down into to parts. The first is that we don't have a clue what manner of design would amplify either Gravity or The Strong Force. You couldn't just plug it into your home stereo any more than your stereo could double as a Ham radio set unless some components could handle radio frequencies or demodulated frequencies.

The second part involves fundamental Laws of Physics. While at the subatomic level fields do pop in and out of existence from what we think of as "nothing" (or "thin air" if you like) their time of existence is so short they are incapable of being employed to do anything accept at the subatomic level. It is not possible to "get something at no cost". It takes energy to get energy. A good example is Heat Pumps which under certain specific conditions appear to have efficiencies greater than 100% because they don't create energy under those conditions they just move it, but there is a cost in that the actual source is depleted and will ultimately be exhausted unless "refilled" by the Sun or some other energy source. Viewed as a whole, they too do not get something for nothing. It is inconceivable that it is possible to move energy levels of any kind, let alone far in excess of Black Holes without already having similar levels of energy to move it.

By far the biggest holes in Lazar's statements is if everything else was inconceivably somehow true, there is still the killer issue of what would happen when suddenly a gravity field is created where none existed and how would that be directed to a single point or what effect it would have on surrounding Spacetime and the other gravitational masses in it. We are not talking about just negating Gravity in a specific location (which though making it substantially easier to move about, would propel nothing - First Law of Motion) we are talking about literally folding Spacetime which he displays as two points on graph paper, conveniently disregarding how that would be so strong yet so tightly limited to involve only two extremely specific points. This is extremely suspect and far more likely to be false. Nothing, not even super massive black holes does this. Even the collision of two black holes which created gravity waves detected by LIGO were not directed to any one point but instead were radiated out in all directions. There is not a single case of amplified or directed gravity anywhere in the Universe under any conditions.

Hopefully above you can see that is exactly what bothers me. Because of the issues I have now explained further nothing in Science says it works like he says or even COULD work that way and now we have access to a key element (115) that we didn't back in 1990.

Regarding that video I'd like you to consider the expanded (1) and add (2) and we'll begin with quotes from the Lazar and the film's producer.

Please stop and consider the above reflections and how real those are. Please imagine what would be done, whether by the CIA, the Military or the Federal Government If such a potential existed. Since Bob also said he actually witnessed one of nine saucers flying, in other words, operational (btw how did we get 9 more than the one that allegedly crashed at Roswell?) why hasn't the allegedly different and special stable isotope been reverse engineered or at least 9 saucers worth of the isotope been used to at the very least create the Ultimate Big Stick that one paltry demonstration of would cause all other countries Military to just literally give up in dismay and as Lazar said "rule the world"? After some 30 years I can't imagine some big wig General didn't push for that.

Consider that one letter to President Roosevelt saying that a far lesser Big Stick was only theoretically possible in less than 1 year had 100,000 plus experts and workers and a budget that would reach over Ten Billion Dollars. Also consider the stimulus to any economy, especially during recessions, with only a rumor of such a "game changer" solution on the horizon. I currently find it hard to imagine our military and government just sitting on this and waiting for 30 years and without one single other "whistle blower" in all that time. Please remember this last part, number 2, is only speculation based on past events that just adds fuel to the scientific fire from number 1 that roasts this whole story.

I'm still interested enough to continue delving into it, but I'm not "holding my breath". It doesn't look good so far.

Sorry to be so long but it, and I think by design, is a really big, convoluted subject.