I am writing this to make sure that I am not wasting the processing power in vain.
Though my contribution is of little significance, I am happy that I have contributed at least something to the biggest project of humanity. I was curious even as a little boy about the Universe, and I committed myself to run SETI in 2003.

That being said. I too believe that an advanced ET civilization will not be transmitting radio waves to send deep space messages, as we or they know the drawbacks of it. I am really in dilemma for the past 2 years, as I see more and more countries releasing UFO documents into the public stream, and high ranking officials testifying before Congress that UFO's and aliens exist and they are real. But SETI after 3 decades of search says that we haven't found one.

My question is, Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected?, or SETI is just a cover up and dis-info agent to dumb down the actual UFO phenomena.

I have sent this same message through email system on this site.

---

There is a procedure laid down (UN?) that describes how the detection of a signal from ET is to be handled. There are all sorts of checks to make sure it really is from ET and not a hoax.

It goes a long way beyond any single government's control.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

There is a procedure laid down (UN?) that describes how the detection of a signal from ET is to be handled. There are all sorts of checks to make sure it really is from ET and not a hoax.

It goes a long way beyond any single government's control.

So there are bigger powers at play behind the government, and I hope you do not mean those who are testifying before congress about ET's are hoaxers.

---

Not US, or UK, or Indian, but United Nations!

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

If so, then trust the scientists.

That being said. I too believe that an advanced ET civilization will not be transmitting radio waves to send deep space messages, as we or they know the drawbacks of it. I am really in dilemma for the past 2 years, as I see more and more countries releasing UFO documents into the public stream, and high ranking officials testifying before Congress that UFO's and aliens exist and they are real. But SETI after 3 decades of search says that we haven't found one.

I'm not sure why more weight is given to "high ranking" officials, as if they are more immune to the same observational dilemas, visual tricks, and various other flaws related to the human condition. That governments release documents with info about their claims do not make their claims any more true than the farmers in the fields. They are just that: documents with statements made by people.

My question is, Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected?, or SETI is just a cover up and dis-info agent to dumb down the actual UFO phenomena.

If you are already questioning the ethical status of the project, do you expect to believe their answer? If I were in your position, the question itself already defines the answer. Therefore any answer given that claims to state they will provide all information to the public would still be met with skepticism by me, especially given that I already opened the question by proffering other sources are already coming "clean".

You won't find your answer here. You'll find plenty of opinions, and you may even be referred to documents where the project already states they will share all findings with the public, but you won't find the answers you're looking for.

What nonsense. What makes you think that the one who finds aliens will be the one who can suppress it.

In today's instant, global communications such a discovery would be going viral in all news, broadcasts and internet outlets before the politicians and the Government could take their hands out of your pockets.

No aliens have been found, and with todays sloppy government security and wikileaks no suppression is being undertaken or could be kept secret.

People who claim otherwise are either drunk, delusional or are trying to sell their book to non-critical thinkers.

I'm not sure why more weight is given to "high ranking" officials, as if they are any more immune to the same observational dilemas, visual tricks, and various other flaws related to the human condition. That governments release documents with info about their claims do not make their claims any more true than the farmers in the fields. They are just that: documents with statements made by people.

Because they are the first hand witness who had dealt with UFO related objects, documents and projects. and testimony before congress is not like anything a farmer or you and me would say.

If you are already questioning the ethical status of the project, do you expect to believe their answer? If I were in your position, the question itself already defines the answer, therefore any answer given that claims to state they will provide all information to the public would still be met with skepticism by me, especially given that I already opened the question by proffering other sources are already coming "clean".

You won't find your answer here. You'll find plenty of opinions, and you may even be referred to documents where the project already states they will share all findings with the public, but you won't find the answers you're looking for.

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic or questioning about the ethical status of the project, because there is nothing wrong in knowing what he/she is actually involved in. I am happy that I asked it, many remain silent because of the response they get.

---

I'm not sure why more weight is given to "high ranking" officials, as if they are any more immune to the same observational dilemas, visual tricks, and various other flaws related to the human condition. That governments release documents with info about their claims do not make their claims any more true than the farmers in the fields. They are just that: documents with statements made by people.

Because they are the first hand witness who had dealt with UFO related objects, documents and projects. and testimony before congress is not like anything a farmer or you and me would say.

Eye-witness and first hand accounts are not as reliable as people think they are. They are simply experiences and testimonies given to the same. That they give a testimony before Congress does not give their experiences any more weight.

A person can have a near-death experience and report seeing a deceased loved one visit them, and a white-light shining down upon them. If this person is a high-ranking official and they testify before Congress about this phenomenon, does that mean the testimony holds more weight?

If you are already questioning the ethical status of the project, do you expect to believe their answer? If I were in your position, the question itself already defines the answer, therefore any answer given that claims to state they will provide all information to the public would still be met with skepticism by me, especially given that I already opened the question by proffering other sources are already coming "clean".

You won't find your answer here. You'll find plenty of opinions, and you may even be referred to documents where the project already states they will share all findings with the public, but you won't find the answers you're looking for.

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic or questioning about the ethical status of the project, because there is nothing wrong in knowing what he/she is actually involved in. I am happy that I asked it, many remain silent because of the response they get.

Of course there's nothing wrong with being skeptical or being curious. Complications arise when one only questions from one point of view. I.E., questioning the ethics of a science project and not give the same level of skepticism toward those giving testimonies about unexplained experiences. It belies an already-drawn conclusion.

What nonsense. What makes you think that the one who finds aliens will be the one who can suppress it.

I assume that even though your post says it was in response to mine, you were actually responding to the OP and not me.

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic or questioning about the ethical status of the project, because there is nothing wrong in knowing what he/she is actually involved in. I am happy that I asked it, many remain silent because of the response they get.

Those who cannot respond to the thoughts of new members and new posters without recourse to ridicule, should perhaps examine their suitability in a project looking for communications from alien species.

Similarly, I think those who read ridicule in responses where none was written should perhaps re-examine or re-evaluate what is being said. Or is any post written to a contrarian position labeled ridicule because we don't like what is being said?

For some reason Seti had an unusual influx of new posters in 2015 from a large number of countries worldwide.

The world visualisation map is where I first learned of this project. Social media and news on Yuri Milner's funding (Breakthrough Listen Initiative) encouraged new users also. Those are some reasons.

edit: I too have seen rudeness used towards new posters and members on this board, It is incongruous, and unpleasant.

I don't know what OzzFan is trying to prove here, and I think there is no need of condescending tone here, I prefer being open minded, ask and question, than to trust any one or blindly believe anything, even if it is a science project involving scientists. I sent the above question to Eric Korpela through the messaging system on this site on Jan 27th, after no reply I decided to post it on the forum.

How will I or you, know if SETI will be open to the public if any signal is detected.

if you say that those army officials are just providing documents and nothing else, what else will become as proof?, When SETI requires the participation of the general population in the search for ET, why are they not even considering any of the personal accounts of the same population?, true there are many hoaxes, but turning a deaf ear to all accounts of UFO encounters doesn't seem right.

Science is about seeking empirical evidence not about turning a deaf ear or plainly refuting.

---

Knowing how busy Eric is I'm not surprised at him not replying.

The short answer to your question is "Yes", but it will not be a quick shout it from the roof tops. Such an announcement will only happen after the supporting data has been analysed by SETI, checked by others, and shown to be a reproducible signal, not a "flash in the pan" (like the infamous "WoW" signal of a few years back.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

These regular "disclosures" by previous senior military staff only mean that they may have seen paperwork that reports others opinions upon the ET subject. Lets face it, retired wackos need to earn an extra crust, and there are plenty of UFO mags that pay good money for rubbish.

I don't know that these people making the claims or giving testimony are necessarily crazy. I'm sure they believe what they saw. The problem is we have progressed into an evidence-based society. If eye-witness reports were so reliable, we wouldn't need traffic cameras, security cameras, etc. Just because they testify something to be true, doesn't make it so.

Similarly, I think those who read ridicule in responses where none was written should perhaps re-examine or re-evaluate what is being said. Or is any post written to a contrarian position labeled ridicule because we don't like what is being said?

I was extending on a point made by Sevoul and not addressing it to yourself, nor to any one person in particular. It was an observation. I have not seen you use ridicule when taking an opposing view to a new poster, but I have seen it done by others. It just seems incongruous on a project such as this one. I am sorry if I offended you. I don't know how I came to.

Thanks for clarifying. No, you didn't offend me. As a generalized statement, I can agree that some people tend to treat new posters with a bit of hostility that is unnecessary.

I don't know what OzzFan is trying to prove here,

Two things. One: you used the argument about high-ranking officials giving testimony about UFOs, suggesting their testimony carries a lot of weight without evidence and should be believed. This is an argument of authority; that because they are a ranking official, their words before Congress or any other body of people mean more than simple lay-people or peasants. This is a bad premise to start with, and I would argue it is irrational as well. If you are a true skeptic, you should only base your positions on evidence and not claims, regardless of who they come from.

Two: Because you start with the premise of an authoritative argument, you have given away that you think there is plausibility for a conspiracy of hiding evidence of UFOs/alien visitations. I am attempting to argue that the premise is wrong, and I am pushing to have you re-think this premise. I also think the question itself is disingenuous. Why would there be any reason to question the ethics of the project unless you believed there would be a conspiracy to cover-up the truth. If you believe in such a conspiracy, why would asking the question be enough to settle a skeptical mind? If you believe the conspiracy; if you believe you're being lied to, what makes the answer to the question any less of a lie?

and I think there is no need of condescending tone here, I prefer being open minded, ask and question, than to trust any one or blindly believe anything, even if it is a science project involving scientists.

Once again I'm puzzled that my responses come across as condescending in nature. I thought I was having the open-minded discussion you were looking for. You mean to say you didn't think asking this question on this forum wouldn't open the question itself for discussion? Or that someone might take up the contrary and argue the point?

For whatever it's worth, I'm with you on the skepticism, the questioning without blindly believing. I do openly wonder why that same skepticism isn't directed at those high-ranking officials testifying before Congress. Why should those people be believed blindly and without evidence, but the project must prove they won't hide data from the public?

How will I or you, know if SETI will be open to the public if any signal is detected.

Because they have already said they would provide it to the public, but not before rigorous verification and collaboration with other scientists. So it goes back to: why be skeptical that they would release the info unless one believes there's a conspiracy to cover up the truth?

if you say that those army officials are just providing documents and nothing else, what else will become as proof?, When SETI requires the participation of the general population in the search for ET, why are they not even considering any of the personal accounts of the same population?, true there are many hoaxes, but turning a deaf ear to all accounts of UFO encounters doesn't seem right.

Science is about seeking empirical evidence not about turning a deaf ear or plainly refuting.

Because we are an evidence based society. As I said previously in this thread, if we trusted eye-witness accounts, we wouldn't need cameras. Thus far, not a single claim from anyone about UFO visitations from another planet have provided convincing evidence to support the claim. It isn't turning a deaf ear if people can't provide convincing evidence.

This is all starting to look like dialog from various episodes of Stargate SG1. Of course, in that setting ET was real and the US Air Force was actually succeeding in keeping hidden actual dealings with aliens. Whether or not the real military could keep up such a smoke screen regarding alien contact remains doubtful to me.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Two things. One: you used the argument about high-ranking officials giving testimony about UFOs, suggesting their testimony carries a lot of weight

I have never said anywhere that the testimony of high ranking officials carries a lot of weight.

You are simply drawing a strawman here.

Two: Because you start with the premise of an authoritative argument, you have given away that you think there is plausibility for a conspiracy of hiding evidence of UFOs/alien visitations. I am attempting to argue that the premise is wrong, and I am pushing to have you re-think this premise. I also think the question itself is disingenuous. Why would there be any reason to question the ethics of the project unless you believed there would be a conspiracy to cover-up the truth. If you believe in such a conspiracy, why would asking the question be enough to settle a skeptical mind? If you believe the conspiracy; if you believe you're being lied to, what makes the answer to the question any less of a lie?

Calling mine an authoritative argument, what are you doing?, On what basis you are attempting to argue that my premise is wrong?, and why do you even try to push me to re-think?, because you think that you are right and others are wrong? what is it?.

Once again I'm puzzled that my responses come across as condescending in nature. I thought I was having the open-minded discussion you were looking for.

open minded discussion is not plainly refuting, but sharing opinions.

I do openly wonder why that same skepticism isn't directed at those high-ranking officials testifying before Congress. Why should those people be believed blindly and without evidence, but the project must prove they won't hide data from the public?

How do you know, that I haven't questioned those high ranking officials?, I have sent emails and I have even received responses too.

My question is based on doubt, but you are unnecessarily drawing straw man and trying to divert my doubt into a conspiracy belief. I am seeing this trend more among those who argue as if science is the ultimate truth - just brand them and banish them as conspiracy theorists.

---

...you may even be referred to documents where the project already states they will share all findings with the public...

I can help with that. Here's the project's statement, and here's the more general Wiki.

---