Remember when you laughed at "tinfoils" who pointed out odd shapes on the Moon and Mars as possible alien artifacts...

Remember when you laughed at "tinfoils" who pointed out odd shapes on the Moon and Mars as possible alien artifacts? Well mainstream scientists are taking the idea seriously now

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576511003249
>Arizona State University paper on using the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter to search for alien artifacts on the Moon

arxiv.org/abs/1111.1212
>"Extraterrestrial technology may exist in the Solar System without our knowledge" - Pennsylvania State University

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Arizona State University

>"Extraterrestrial technology may exist in the Solar System without our knowledge" - Pennsylvania State University

A teapot may orbit the sun between the earth and Mars without our knowledge also.

>Arizona State University
Who?

Come back when a few top 10 global unis produce statements agreeing

What if the existence of ET technology in the Solar System is well known, just not publicly?

>Strawman
>Post that some people take alien visitation seriously
>"Hurr they're not academics just random rednecks!"
>Post that professors at universities have written academic papers on alien visitation of the Solar System
>"Hurr it's not a top 10 university!"
What next? I post a study from Stanford and you say "hurr it's not from Harvard"? Since when was it good practice to dismiss an entire paper without reading it just because it's from a state university? That's right, when the contents of that paper BTFOs your own retarded beliefs about the universe.

Sorry, but it just seems like a pointless, ridiculous study to me.

"ET tech may exist in our solar system without us knowing about it because the solar system is really, really big and we haven't studied most of it. Here's some equations that show us how much we haven't studied!"

I mean, come on - that's beyond ridiculous.

>Green texting green text

Not them, but:

The second paper is literally a meme paper ("popular physics"). The first one seems to have been written by an actual scientist. But your whole argument rests on "scientists" taking the idea seriously? Hardly. This is the guy who made the first study:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

He's a guy who wants to believe. Guess what, we all do, but that doesn't mean that aliens exist or have existed in our solar system. It's obvious that the "research" paper he published is influenced by his interests in the search for extraterrestrial life. I would hardly call that "mainstream" science. Just because the speculation (and that's purely what his paper is) is done by an actual scientist doesn't mean that the chances of aliens having visited us have increased, let alone actual evidence of such visitations.

That's a more reasonable position than "It doesn't exist". it's only "ridiculous" to you because you don't want to believe in the possibility. But the possibility is there whether you believe or not. Unless you can prove that it's impossible for any alien probe launched millions of years ago to have entered out Solar System and crashed on say Triton (which we only have one fuzzy picture of by the way) then their study is perfectly valid.

...

>He believes in aliens
>Therefore anything he says should be automatically discarded
Guess what? The director of NASA believes in aliens. Does that make him incompetent? I've seen this so many times, someone's data or study is dismissed purely because they take aliens seriously. If that's not suppression I don't know what is.

Have you got any actual evidence that his study is bunk? Sounds to me that you just don't want to believe in it because it upsets your world.

> unfalsifiable
trash.jpg

>But your whole argument rests on "scientists" taking the idea seriously?

Every time I make these threads I get told to fuck off to /x/ so now you can't say that because these are published papers from American universities that I have posted. My entire aim is to show that the idea of past alien visitation is not "paranormal". This thread proves that nicely? See any studies on ghosts from Arizona State University?

What are you talking about user?

You can easily prove it by scanning every single inch of the Solar System, provided aliens don't have micrometer sized probes that is

It is falsifiable you dipshit, literally the entire point of his paper, to use the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to check. Beats sitting on Earth and assuming there's nothing out there.

>>Therefore anything he says should be automatically discarded

Either this is a bad strawman or you're a retard. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason I highlighted his interest in aliens is to justify how the paper was published in the first place, to show you that this isn't mainstream science as you claim, it's an exception born out of a fringe interest. As for the content itself, I didn't say it was "bunk", I said it is pure speculation, which it is at this point in time. If you consider that a bad thing, maybe you shouldn't have posted this in the first place claiming it supports your view.

We have no evidence of intelligent life having visited us as far as we can tell, and speculating doesn't make the scenario that aliens have visited us more plausible, which is what you were implying. Anything beyond that is unfalsifiable, therefore not science.

I don't think I've met a single scientist that "assumes nothing's out there"
Every single one of your posts reeks of building strawmen for you to knock down.

>That's a more reasonable position than "It doesn't exist". it's only "ridiculous" to you because you don't want to believe in the possibility. But the possibility is there whether you believe or not.

That was never my position. My position, like most scientists who study the topic, is that it's highly improbable given the vastness of the universe.

Of course the "possibility" is there - hence me bringing up Russel's teapot. Sure it was a bit of a strawman, but the point is valid. Just because something is technically "possible" doesn't mean it warrants fervent belief. And fervent belief in ET tech being present in our solar system seems to be what you are advocating, given your statement in the OP.

Aftee playing stellaris for over 50 hours i can garantee you that we are watched by xeno scum right now. In fact we should be glad that we are no getting disected and anal probed for shit an giggles. But you can be damn sure that they are just waiting for us to reach space age so they can colonise our planet and throw us into the mines as slaves. The only way is to find and purge them. Fucking xeno scum!

Nah, most aliens would have probably evolved beyond primitive militarist instincts and are probably peaceful traders or spiritualist searchers. We just need to become their vassals for a while before building up huge armada and crushing them with our 500 corvette fleet.

You can't claim it's "not mainstream enough" Shit published in peer-reviewed journals is mainstream. As I said first Veeky Forums claimed alien visitation was "paranormal" and now that I've shown scientists with degrees working at Western universities publishing in mainstream academic journals writing about alien visitation suddenly Veeky Forums is resorting to borderline ad hominem attacks. "The university is isn't prestigious enough", "the guy is probably a kook"
>We have no evidence of intelligent life having visited us as far as we can tell, and speculating doesn't make the scenario that aliens have visited us more plausible, which is what you were implying. Anything beyond that is unfalsifiable, therefore not science.
This is the most fucked up part YOU'RE THE ONE SPECULATING! That paper wants to check for alien artifacts just in case, you're saying it's stupid because "you feel there is nothing out there". This is the worst act of scientific heresy ever, to shoot down an experiment purely because you've already speculated that it will come back false.
But if we can check we should.

Not the guy you're responding to, but

>like most scientists who study the topic, is that it's highly improbable given the vastness of the universe
Do you have any evidence at all to back this up? Because it seems like you're just assuming that because you find aliens so "ridiculous".

>Just because something is technically "possible" doesn't mean it warrants fervent belief
This wasn't the point Russel was making. The point was the burden of proof should lie on the person making the claim. At the time religious authorities had taken on the "prove me wrong" attitude. The people here are making great efforts to seek out the evidence needed to prove their own claims. I actually think Russel would support challenging scientific dogma through well designed experiments.

>fervent belief in ET tech being present in our solar system seems to be what you are advocating, given your statement in the OP
I have no idea how you got that from the OP. The only thing implied was that it shouldn't be written off as impossible, or so highly improbable it's not worth investigating.

Okay, you shot down your benefit of the doubt, you're a retard. And yes, that's an ad hominem, and I'm using it for good fucking reason.

>As I said first Veeky Forums claimed alien visitation was "paranormal"
Alien visitation in the sense of aliens visiting you in the night and shoving probes up your ass is still "paranormal". Scientists looking for extraterrestrial life is not.

>You can't claim it's "not mainstream enough" Shit published in peer-reviewed journals is mainstream.
Publishing something doesn't make it mainstream. You do realise the opposite of mainstream thought is a fringe theory, right? Like the one in OP.

Also, don't be under the assumption that a published journal = God's infallible truth. Lots of shit gets published and it might be shit-tier. There was a scandal some time ago where a paper published in PLoS whose author was investigating the biomechanics of the human hand if I remember correctly, and claimed it was the work of the "Lord". Noone is infallible.

>This is the most fucked up part YOU'RE THE ONE SPECULATING!
This must be bait. Unless you really think stating a fact (We have no evidence of intelligent life having visited us to the extent of our knowledge) is speculating. Which is dumb.

>That paper wants to check for alien artifacts just in case,
Yes, but that is not what I'm objecting to, I'm objecting to you using their paper's speculation (of alien tech existing on the moon) to support your viewpoint that aliens have visited us. As very aptly explained:
>Just because something is technically "possible" doesn't mean it warrants fervent belief.


>you're saying it's stupid because "you feel there is nothing out there"
Where the fuck did I criticise the experiments proposed in the paper? You're literally pissed that the speculation part of the paper does not help bolster the chances of your views on aliens being real. I never said anything about the experiments, only about the speculation. Which remains weak.

>Alien visitation in the sense of aliens visiting you in the night and shoving probes up your ass is still "paranormal". Scientists looking for extraterrestrial life is not.
Alien visitation is alien visitation nigger. Don't start cherrypicking or using my UFO beliefs as a strawman against Arizona State's paper. Searching for alien artifacts on mars was firmly in the realm of UFO communities until these two universities started supporting the idea. I've posted threads about possible artifacts on mars and got "/x/"! and "paredolia!" shouted at me. So don't come blubbing with "b-but we only meant abductions!"
Furthermore if alien artifacts were found in the Solar System then that would BTFO the argument that aliens can't travel to Earth because interstellar travel is "impossible"
>Publishing something doesn't make it mainstream. You do realise the opposite of mainstream thought is a fringe theory, right? Like the one in OP.
Either way it's not paranormal and worthy of scientific investigation which is exactly what Veeky Forums has been arguing against. "Checking Mars for crashed spaceships? Tinfoil!" was the motto of Veeky Forums
>This must be bait. Unless you really think stating a fact (We have no evidence of intelligent life having visited us to the extent of our knowledge) is speculating. Which is dumb.
Because we haven't fucking looked you mongoloid therefore you are speculating
>, I'm objecting to you using their paper's speculation (of alien tech existing on the moon) to support your viewpoint that aliens have visited us
I've never said they have I've always said they could have. Veeky Forums always shot it down quoting FTL. What's to stop some ayys from Tau Ceti sending a probe on a fusion rocket or something, landing on the Moon leaving behind some artifacts?

>Either way it's not paranormal
That's the funny thing.
There are peer-reviewed paranormal journals.
> "Checking Mars for crashed spaceships? Tinfoil!" was the motto of Veeky Forums
you're strawmanning again.

>Don't start cherrypicking or using my UFO beliefs as a strawman against Arizona State's paper.
You're missing the point. The speculation that alien tech or artifacts are on Mars or the Moon is still JUST as weak as before those two papers, which is what everyone in this thread has been telling you. Just because scientists consider it a possibility, that does NOT somehow increase its chances of being real. As such, the subject matter is still in the realm of UFO communities, since the speculation remains the same. Judge the content, not the titles of the person.

>Furthermore if alien artifacts
The consequences are irrelevant to this discussion since the speculation is weak to begin with.

>which is exactly what Veeky Forums has been arguing against.
Anyone can consider anything worthy of "scientific consideration". As I said above, publishing something does NOT make a scenario more likely, the speculation is the same as some UFO communities that Veeky Forums ridiculed to begin with.

>Because we haven't fucking looked you mongoloid therefore you are speculating
This has to be a misunderstanding. Otherwise, you might want to re-evaluate your logic, definitions and basic thinking and reading skills. A few tips:
>to the best of our knowledge
This is where you have to focus.
Protip: stating a fact (we have NO evidence as far as we know that intelligent ayyliums have visited us) is NOT speculation. Christ. Got it?

>What's to stop some ayys from Tau Ceti sending a probe [...]
Well to begin with, we have been trying to contact ayys from Tau Ceti for quite some time thanks to SETI and we have had no contact. Even the guys in the paper you quoted state that the chances of alien contact with nearby solar systems through SETI is extremely unlikely. Then you have to make up more stuff to make it plausible (extinct civilisation), rendering the speculation even weaker.

Anyway, that's it for me, calling it a night. Maybe another user will indulge you.

>Remember when you laughed at "tinfoils" who pointed out odd shapes on the Moon and Mars as possible alien artifacts?
Yes, and you're still silly, because you still don't understand how science works.

Also, either you're clutching at straws, or you've badly misread that paper. It doesn't say anything that makes you sound any less ridiculous.

>Do you have any evidence at all to back this up? Because it seems like you're just assuming that because you find aliens so "ridiculous".

Literally any scientist that studies astrophysics, astronomy, the possibility of alien life, fuck, even the people at SETI would agree that it's highly improbable that extraterrestrials have visited our solar system. Read anything of value on the topic and find out for yourself. Jesus.

And yes - that absolutely was the point Russell was making. The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim - hence, you shouldn't believe something just because it's possible because you can't prove it's not.

I'm not at all spouting scientific dogma - I'm thinking logically based on the amount of available information.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not assuming anything because I find aliens ridiculous. I find the notion that they have visited our solar system ridiculous because I've had an interest in the subject since I was twelve, and all the best available evidence I've come across points to the conclusion that they haven't. If any evidence to the contrary comes up, I'll gladly change my tune.

>There are peer-reviewed paranormal journals.
So what? These were published in scientific journals. If I hadn't posted the papers you would have told me to go to /x/ don't feign ignorance as to how Veeky Forums acts
>you're strawmanning again.
Not a strawman, that's literally what the paper is advocating
>Bla bla speculation speculation
You are still not getting it, no-one is saying that there's definitely artifacts in the solar system, I and the paper is saying that the possibility is there therefore it's worth checking if we can. You don't want to check not because you have evidence that it's impossible but because you just think the idea is ridiculous. This is very un-scientific. You let the experiment decide not your own biased beliefs.
Explain carefully why searching for alien artifacts in the Solar System is "un-scientific" Protip: you can't
Again with the "it's improbable therefore we shouldn't bother" It's improbable that aliens will ever find Voyager yet NASA put information about the human race on it regardless. Are they kooks?

We already have plans to send probes to Alpha Centauri yet an alien sending a probe to us in the billions of years that have passed is "silly"?

>If any evidence to the contrary comes up, I'll gladly change my tune.
And the catch is that you will shout down anyone who tries to check for that evidence such as Arizona State University thus "proving" your beliefs that aliens have never visited the Solar System because that is what you wanted to believe all along.

The more I research the extraterrestrial debate the more I realize that skeptics and tinfoils are two sides of the same coin.

>I and the paper is saying that the possibility is there therefore it's worth checking if we can.
For fuck's sake, you really don't understand the paper, do you?
It's not "LOL aliens may be in the solar system", it's an actual estimation of an unknown probability. Everyone already knew it wasn't impossible - that's not news.

>You don't want to check not because you have evidence that it's impossible but because you just think the idea is ridiculous. This is very un-scientific.
You're not listening to anything anyone is telling you.

>Explain carefully why searching for alien artifacts in the Solar System is "un-scientific" Protip: you can't
Literally no-one has said that. You're not listening.

>Again with the "it's improbable therefore we shouldn't bother"
When you have limited resources, focusing on the stuff that's vaguely likely to be true is a sound strategy.

>We already have plans to send probes to Alpha Centauri yet an alien sending a probe to us in the billions of years that have passed is "silly"?
Yes. That's what our best estimates say.

>And the catch is that you will shout down anyone who tries to check for that evidence such as Arizona State University thus "proving" your beliefs that aliens have never visited the Solar System because that is what you wanted to believe all along.
This is the kind of shit that I'm talking about. You're just assuming shit about other people to avoid actually engaging in any kind of criticism.

>The more I research the extraterrestrial debate the more I realize that skeptics and tinfoils are two sides of the same coin.
Just stop.

>It's not "LOL aliens may be in the solar system"
"Extraterrestrial technology may exist in the Solar System without our knowledge" - Pennsylvania State University
>Literally no-one has said that
Every previous thread I've ever seen on Veeky Forums mentioning alien artifacts was shouted down by people screaming /x/. Are you going to continue to feign ignorance while I search the archive?
>You're not listening to anything anyone is telling you.
You're the one not listening. You keep saying that these papers don't prove that the Solar System has been visited therefore I am an idiot. But that's not my argument, my argument is simply that threads about alien artefacts on the Moon or Mars shouldn't be dismissed as "tinfoil bullshit" by Veeky Forums
>Yes. That's what our best estimates say.
Explain your bullshit, why is it silly?
>This is the kind of shit that I'm talking about. You're just assuming shit about other people to avoid actually engaging in any kind of criticism.
You've done exactly what I said, shouted down both me and the papers purely because you think the idea is silly not any actual logical refutation
>When you have limited resources, focusing on the stuff that's vaguely likely to be true is a sound strategy.
Since when did keeping your eyes open and taking the possibility seriously = setting up a mission to look for crashed spaceships on the Moon?
>Just stop.
rather than throwing a tantrum explain why what I said is not true? I've posted two papers saying the idea should be taken seriously and you say it shouldn't be taken seriously just because you on't believe it should be. No actual logic, just blind faith. If you didn't have your head in the sand throwing out angry knee-jerk reactions just like a tinfoil then you would have just accepted my point that discussing the possibility of alien artifacts is not paranormal. but instead it's every dumb ass argument from "the university isn't good enough" "the professor is a kook" to "it's just silly"

> shouting down
> like anything posted on this cantonese paper folding forum matters to NASA
Just crawl back to your hole

Ah thank you for proving my point.

You're obviously too stupid to understand the paper, let alone publishing practices in science.
Aaaay lmaos belong on /x/

ASU aren't rednecks, they're slackers

Let me clarify this a little for you. Nobody asked you to post here, nobody asked for your opinion, and no one wants to hear what you have to say. Have a nice evening.

FREEZE PEACH

FFS. Read 1st 10 posts then skipped.
Every year u.grads have to produce papers. There is a limit to what can be researched and, seriously guys, most topics have been covered (as you already know). So what is the point of a paper? To demonstrate scientific research, process, methodology and logic and finally analysis. Moon aliens - with a conclusion to utilise existing tech for a survey IS a viable subject.

It doesn't mean there really ARE aliens. I thought you were scientists?