Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1763885 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 17:19:03 UTC - in response to Message 1763828.  

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

Chris, can you provide evidence for this assertion?
ID: 1763885 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1763886 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 17:19:05 UTC

Thanks John, I had a quick look, but couldn't find it (I was looking for the wrong key words)
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1763886 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1763896 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 17:32:02 UTC - in response to Message 1763877.  

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.


But you did. When I asked initially in Message 1763738, you responded in Message 1763745 with:

Savoul Pelister wrote:
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.


I haven't drawn a strawman. You confirmed in your own message that you believed their testimonies carried more weight.

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?.


I don't think you understand what using an authoritative argument means. It means appealing to authority. In this context, you are appealing to the authority of high-ranking official's testimonies as evidence of fact that their own statements are true.

I have not appealed to the same. I am not pointing to someone thought to be in a high-powered position as justification of my viewpoints.

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.


Open minded discussions are about hearing all sides of a particular topic, and being open to listening to arguments to the contrary of one's own stance. Hence being "open minded" enough to listen to things normally outside your thought processes, so one can become more well rounded in rationales in a topic.

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.


I didn't ask why they haven't been questioned. What I asked is why their stories should be believed blindly and without hard evidence.

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.


The problem with going down the rabbit hole of doubt is that you wind up at conspiracy theories. Hard evidence is the ultimate truth. People can be wrong. Scientists, since they are people, can be wrong. Science is merely a method for finding fact among fiction.

The only reason why you'd have doubt if SETI@home would make their findings public is if you actually give credence to the claims that there is a cover-up. A cover-up involves a conspiracy, in this case to hide information from the public. The problem with the cover-up idea is that the more people involved in the conspiracy to hide the truth, and the longer this truth is hidden, the greater the chance someone would reveal the truth and have hard evidence to support the claim.

Lots of people have come forward with claims. None so far have provided convincing evidence to support their claims.
ID: 1763896 · Report as offensive
Savoul Pelister

Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 03
Posts: 9
Credit: 870,005
RAC: 0
India
Message 1763906 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 17:48:49 UTC - in response to Message 1763896.  
Last modified: 10 Feb 2016, 17:52:11 UTC

"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."


That statement is not about the credibility, but I just compared your example of witness by a farmer, implying that a testimony by an official is not the same as a farmer. On many occasions you seem to jump into quick conclusions on the argument of others.

I don't think you understand what using an authoritative argument means. It means appealing to authority. In this context, you are appealing to the authority of high-ranking official's testimonies as evidence of fact that their own statements are true.

I have not appealed to the same. I am not pointing to someone thought to be in a high-powered position as justification of my viewpoints.


I am not appealing it here, you are the one writing pages after pages without understanding my question in the first place.

The problem with going down the rabbit hole of doubt is that you wind up at conspiracy theories. Hard evidence is the ultimate truth. People can be wrong. Scientists, since they are people, can be wrong. Science is merely a method for finding fact among fiction.


You will not know what is hard evidence or truth without going down deep into the rabbit hole. Alice would not have known the truth if she didn't go down the rabbit hole.

standing on the surface and pondering over the depth and width of the hole is not going to help, someone has to do it, and I did it.

Lots of people have come forward with claims. None so far have provided convincing evidence to support their claims.


how many evidences or claims have you seen or verified.

Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate, that there are no mysteries in nature and that our triumph is complete. - Humphrey Davey
ID: 1763906 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1763915 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 18:28:12 UTC - in response to Message 1763906.  

"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."


That statement is not about the credibility, but I just compared your example of witness by a farmer, implying that a testimony by an official is not the same as a farmer. On many occasions you seem to jump into quick conclusions on the argument of others.


But it is a statement about their credibility. Why should the two be different? If a farmer can provide evidence to support their claim, or a high-ranking government official, both should be equally believed.

I don't think you understand what using an authoritative argument means. It means appealing to authority. In this context, you are appealing to the authority of high-ranking official's testimonies as evidence of fact that their own statements are true.

I have not appealed to the same. I am not pointing to someone thought to be in a high-powered position as justification of my viewpoints.


I am not appealing it here, you are the one writing pages after pages without understanding my question in the first place.


But you have, and I think that's where our current disagreement lies. You stated initially that a high-ranking government official's testimony before Congress is not the same as a farmer's testimony before Congress (should such a thing occur).

The problem with going down the rabbit hole of doubt is that you wind up at conspiracy theories. Hard evidence is the ultimate truth. People can be wrong. Scientists, since they are people, can be wrong. Science is merely a method for finding fact among fiction.


You will not know what is hard evidence or truth without going down deep into the rabbit hole. Alice would not have known the truth if she didn't go down the rabbit hole.


Alice didn't experience fact or evidence. She was asleep in a fictional world.

standing on the surface and pondering over the depth and width of the hole is not going to help, someone has to do it, and I did it.


But you're not pondering the depth and width of a hole. You are pondering over whether people telling you there's no hole are correct or not, yet none of those people can show you the hole itself, or some other evidence that might support the existence of this hole.

If we were pondering over something we have direct physical access to, we wouldn't be argument semantics on whether there's a conspiracy if the hole exists but rather what evidence of the hole means, who put it there, and why. There would be something physical to bring the discussion out of the realm of conspiracy and into the real of the physical and real.

Lots of people have come forward with claims. None so far have provided convincing evidence to support their claims.


how many evidences or claims have you seen or verified.


Every one of them I've come across. I don't keep tally, sorry.

Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate, that there are no mysteries in nature and that our triumph is complete. - Humphrey Davey


Agreed. Even if we think a science is settled, if new evidence comes into light that makes us question a scientific theory or law, we should definitely re-investigate it with the new data.

But this discussion isn't about new data. This discussion is about claims of cover-ups. Claims that someone would hide the truth of alien visitations if found. Until there's new evidence to support the claims, there's no reason to give credence to any of them.
ID: 1763915 · Report as offensive
Savoul Pelister

Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 03
Posts: 9
Credit: 870,005
RAC: 0
India
Message 1763926 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 19:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 1763915.  

It seems, you are trying to establish only your viewpoint is right and others are wrong, if that is so then there is no point in sharing opinions.

But this discussion isn't about new data. This discussion is about claims of cover-ups. Claims that someone would hide the truth of alien visitations if found. Until there's new evidence to support the claims, there's no reason to give credence to any of them.


My question is based on doubt, not a claim about cover-ups, and no one is talking about any new data here. Most of your argument seem to be nothing but straw man or simply the case of misunderstanding the question.
ID: 1763926 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1763933 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 19:27:26 UTC - in response to Message 1763926.  

It seems, you are trying to establish only your viewpoint is right and others are wrong, if that is so then there is no point in sharing opinions.


Right and wrong are too black and white for me. I don't care if I'm wrong and others are right or vice versa. I care about learning new things. I've learned a great deal of things from people right here on this forum. I've been proven wrong so many times that I know I'm not always right. I'm sorry you feel differently about me.

But this discussion isn't about new data. This discussion is about claims of cover-ups. Claims that someone would hide the truth of alien visitations if found. Until there's new evidence to support the claims, there's no reason to give credence to any of them.


My question is based on doubt, not a claim about cover-ups, and no one is talking about any new data here. Most of your argument seem to be nothing but straw man or simply the case of misunderstanding the question.


I'm not sure how I could misunderstand the question. The question you asked was right there in the thread title: "Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected". The only reason why someone would ask such a question is if they thought there was a chance otherwise. That's where the doubt would come in. There's no reason to give credence to the doubt unless one starts to believe in the conspiracy of cover-ups.

If you hadn't lead up to the question with talk about the release of UFO documents from various governments, and about high-ranking officials making statements about their experiences with UFOs; if the question was posed by itself, I wouldn't have bothered posting because I knew someone else would have provided you with the link to the project's official statement. But since you gave context to the question, that indicates there's something more to the question than just doubt or inquiry. I posted because I thought those statements were worth challenging.
ID: 1763933 · Report as offensive
Savoul Pelister

Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 03
Posts: 9
Credit: 870,005
RAC: 0
India
Message 1763936 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 19:41:09 UTC - in response to Message 1763933.  
Last modified: 10 Feb 2016, 19:44:15 UTC

The only reason why someone would ask such a question is if they thought
there was a chance otherwise.


As I said you are jumping into conclusions here, There are many reasons for asking a question, and just assuming there should be only one reason shows your narrow viewpoint.

That's where the doubt would come in. There's no reason to give credence to the doubt unless one starts to believe in the conspiracy of cover-ups.


No one is asking any credence from you. I posted that question on this forum hoping people searching for ET will be more open minded than others who do not involve in this project. You proved me wrong. I really don't know how in the world with such a mindset, you are even a volunteer of this project.

If you hadn't lead up to the question with talk about the release of UFO documents from various governments, and about high-ranking officials making statements about their experiences with UFOs; if the question was posed by itself, I wouldn't have bothered posting because I knew someone else would have provided you with the link to the project's official statement. But since you gave context to the question, that indicates there's something more to the question than just doubt or inquiry. I posted because I thought those statements were worth challenging.


what's wrong with pointing out the events taking place related to ET's?, why pointing out to citizen hearing is wrong here?, so do you mean those testifying before the congress and senators who were listening are totally delusional? and anyone pointing it out or referring to that is a conspiracy theorist?
ID: 1763936 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1763939 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 20:18:27 UTC - in response to Message 1763936.  

The only reason why someone would ask such a question is if they thought there was a chance otherwise.


As I said you are jumping into conclusions here, There are many reasons for asking a question, and just assuming there should be only one reason shows your narrow viewpoint.


So you're saying you asked the question because you had no doubt SETI would make the info public?

That's where the doubt would come in. There's no reason to give credence to the doubt unless one starts to believe in the conspiracy of cover-ups.


No one is asking any credence from you.


Sounds like you're making this quite personal. I'm not offering credence. I'm saying one shouldn't give any thought to claims of cover-ups unless evidence can be shown to the contrary.

I posted that question on this forum hoping people searching for ET will be more open minded than others who do not involve in this project. You proved me wrong. I really don't know how in the world with such a mindset, you are even a volunteer of this project.


Once again it sounds like you're making this quite personal. To answer your question, I am involved in this project because I believe in the project's stated goals. If I thought the project were going to hide evidence I wouldn't be involved.

I'm not quite sure what your question has to do with being open minded, unless you've narrowly defined open-minded as only people who believe we are being visited by aliens from another world are allowed to speak up. It sounds like you don't allow for the possibility that someone might believe in searching for evidence for the existence of life elsewhere without believing that we are currently being visited.

If you hadn't lead up to the question with talk about the release of UFO documents from various governments, and about high-ranking officials making statements about their experiences with UFOs; if the question was posed by itself, I wouldn't have bothered posting because I knew someone else would have provided you with the link to the project's official statement. But since you gave context to the question, that indicates there's something more to the question than just doubt or inquiry. I posted because I thought those statements were worth challenging.


what's wrong with pointing out the events taking place related to ET's?, why pointing out to citizen hearing is wrong here?, so do you mean those testifying before the congress and senators who were listening are totally delusional? and anyone pointing it out or referring to that is a conspiracy theorist?


I already argued against such a position with Chris S. earlier in this thread. TO reiterate, I don't believe those people testifying before Congress are delusional or crazy. I'm sure they believe 100% in what they saw, and they probably saw something they can't explain. I simply don't agree with their conclusion that it was visitors from another planet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
ID: 1763939 · Report as offensive
Savoul Pelister

Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 03
Posts: 9
Credit: 870,005
RAC: 0
India
Message 1763940 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 20:42:00 UTC - in response to Message 1763939.  
Last modified: 10 Feb 2016, 21:00:48 UTC

I'm not quite sure what your question has to do with being open minded, unless you've narrowly defined open-minded as only people who believe we are being visited by aliens from another world are allowed to speak up.


None of your arguments seem to be open minded from the first to last, you are keen on refuting or replying line by line for the sake of argument.

Did I define that "open-minded as only people who believe we are being visited by aliens from another world are allowed to speak up"?, open mindedness is contributing opinions irrespective of belief of those who ask it, not jumping into conclusion and diverting the argument, dragging them and branding them as conspiracy theorists. You are doing that from the start of your first comment.

I have seen that many times, when people ask question on a scientific theory or project, they must be a religious fanatic or conspiracy theorist - that's narrow mindedness.

It sounds like you don't allow for the possibility that someone might believe in searching for evidence for the existence of life elsewhere without believing that we are currently being visited.


No one is asking you to believe that we are being visited, Thinking that analyzing the radio frequencies for intelligence signal has proved that there is no evidence for life elsewhere is absurd.
ID: 1763940 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1763945 - Posted: 10 Feb 2016, 21:13:47 UTC - in response to Message 1763940.  

Did I define that "open-minded as only people who believe we are being visited by aliens from another world are allowed to speak up"?, open mindedness is contributing opinions irrespective of belief of those who ask it, not jumping into conclusion and diverting the argument, dragging them and branding them as conspiracy theorists. You are doing that from the start of your first comment.


I merely responded off what you posted. If you feel I've jumped to conclusions, I would urge you to clarify where I've misunderstood. I'm open to being wrong. If you think I'm branding you a conspiracy theorist, it sounds like you've taken my words more personally than I intended or wrote them.

Thinking that analyzing the radio frequencies for intelligence signal has proved that there is no evidence for life elsewhere is absurd.


I would agree with this statement. I also don't hold to that position; I do not believe that analyzing radio signals has proved there is no evidence for life elsewhere.
ID: 1763945 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1763981 - Posted: 11 Feb 2016, 5:35:36 UTC - in response to Message 1763945.  

Thinking that analyzing the radio frequencies for intelligence signal has proved that there is no evidence for life elsewhere is absurd.


I would agree with this statement. I also don't hold to that position; I do not believe that analyzing radio signals has proved there is no evidence for life elsewhere.

I'm more curious about how many observing seconds the average pixel of sky has been observed. I don't think the number is very big at all. For one the present data source doesn't scan the entire sky so a large part is zero. Greenbank can reach more places, but at a lower sensitivity. However the southern Hemisphere is without a receiver. (for Seti@home)
ID: 1763981 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1763997 - Posted: 11 Feb 2016, 6:48:17 UTC - in response to Message 1763981.  

However the southern Hemisphere is without a receiver. (for Seti@home)

For now.
ID: 1763997 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1764003 - Posted: 11 Feb 2016, 7:17:55 UTC - in response to Message 1763997.  

However the southern Hemisphere is without a receiver. (for Seti@home)

For now.

Actually there is the Parkes Radio Telescope which has recently discovered swarm of hundreds of nearby galaxies behind the center of the Milky Way and also the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory which will become part of the ASKAP Radio Telescope.

Cheers.
ID: 1764003 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1764178 - Posted: 11 Feb 2016, 23:33:41 UTC - in response to Message 1764003.  

However the southern Hemisphere is without a receiver. (for Seti@home)

For now.

Actually there is the Parkes Radio Telescope which has recently discovered swarm of hundreds of nearby galaxies behind the center of the Milky Way and also the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory which will become part of the ASKAP Radio Telescope.

Cheers.

(for Seti@home)
ID: 1764178 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1764597 - Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 13:09:21 UTC - in response to Message 1764036.  

I can John, but it would mean naming individuals which I can't do on line for obvious reasons. If you want me to pm you privately with names let me know.

I don't want you to name individuals, and that isn't the evidence I was seeking. The only objective evidence that could verify your assertion is a list showing the number of new posters on all the SETI@home forums for the past few years, per country.
ID: 1764597 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1764615 - Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 15:08:18 UTC - in response to Message 1764599.  

That would take many many hours John, which I am not prepared to do.

Nor am I! ;)

In which case I am happy to leave it that I have made an assertion that cannot be backed up. If that is detrimental to me then so be it.

I can't seeing it being detrimental to you, especially since you've conceded that it can't (easily) be backed up with hard data.

Case closed, m'lud! :)
ID: 1764615 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1764655 - Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 20:20:09 UTC

My opinion on the original question is YES. If a truly intelligent signal is found in all the electronic noise coming from space too many different people will be involved in the discovery to keep it a secret. I also think it is highly unlikely that such a discovery will come after ET lands and announces themselves.
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.
ID: 1764655 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 177
Credit: 1,303,001
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1764976 - Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 20:35:02 UTC

To keep it secret you'd have to physically isolate everyone participating and everyone they work with and anybody in their daily lives who knows what they do and what their disappearance might mean.
Containing it would be like trying to herd cats.
ID: 1764976 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1765643 - Posted: 17 Feb 2016, 6:20:26 UTC - in response to Message 1764178.  

However the southern Hemisphere is without a receiver. (for Seti@home)

For now.

Actually there is the Parkes Radio Telescope which has recently discovered swarm of hundreds of nearby galaxies behind the center of the Milky Way and also the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory which will become part of the ASKAP Radio Telescope.

Cheers.

(for Seti@home)

1 of the last news bits on SETI@home classic was that of Parkes being considered for use, but I never heard what the outcome was.

Was it just the problem of the transfer of data?

Einstein@Home (1 of my backup projects) uses data from Parkes (my preferred workunit of choice there) so why not here as well?

Cheers.
ID: 1765643 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Will SETI ever make it public if ET signals are detected


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.