I'm an astronomer and I think aliens may be out there — but UFO sightings aren't persuasive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 9, 2020
33
8
35
When I read/hear about the possibility of other world "intelligent" aliens, a recurrent comment from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" comes to mind. Paraphrased: "We meet complex, cultured beings from a spectacular environment and kill them". Perhaps, H. Sapiens should remain tethered to Earth in the confinement sense. There we can continue our evolutionary heritage of mind numbingly stupid barbarity towards our and other species with occasional common sense enlightenments. The precursors to the global spread of the Sars-Cov-2 virus and the aftermath of lies and denials are just the current example of that mind numbing stupidity. Hopefully, Nature and Evolution, in the next 1- 20K years, will fashion on Earth another Homo sub-species possessed more with wonder, understanding and insight than dominance , hate and violence. No bets though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marty369

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
368
146
360
Given the enormity of the universe, the chances of humanity being the only "intelligent" species is infinitesimally small (a rather arrogant position to take as well).

That being said, should E.T. come knocking we better hope they are friendly. Any species capable of visiting us, in person, would be far more advanced than us.

Hopefully, not a boot and ant scenario.

I have no doubt that there are others, looking into their sky, wondering what is out there. Like us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,553
520
2,560
When it comes to verification of E.T. phoning home as an example and intelligent life in the universe, I prefer the tried and true method of observation and testing. Good examples abound in astronomy. In 1672, Cassini and Richer used telescopes to measure the Mars parallax, showing the distance between Earth and Mars, opening up the solar system size and dimensions as verifiable, previously Tycho Brahe tried to do this (measure Mars parallax at opposition) to refute Copernicus but failed. Telescopes were used then to measure the lunar parallax, about 57 arcminute to show the distance to the Moon. Telescopes were used during Venus and Mercury transits to define the solar parallax that determined the astronomical unit. In 1838, telescopes were used to measure stellar parallax to the star 61 Cygni for the first time, thus opening up the immense distances that stars could be from Earth. Recently this measurement was revisited and examined again, 'Resolving long-standing mysteries about the first parallaxes in astronomy', https://phys.org/news/2020-11-long-standing-mysteries-parallaxes-astronomy.html

Astronomy like I cited in these examples stands on a more secure foundation of testing and verification at the present than E.T. traveling around or visiting Earth :) However, COLGeek is free to go for it :)
 
Dec 29, 2020
4
1
15
I am a lifelong lover of science, and have kept myself current on astrophysics, cosmology, geology, biology, and what a wonderful time to be alive with regard to space exploration. Yesterday, Ultima Thule came into my mind and I had to take a look at it again.

Fully, 97-99 percent of all UAP sightings can be explained without involving aliens or alien crafts, but the remainder defy "reasonable" explanation. Some of the unexplainables are witnessed by sober, intelligent, reasonable, perhaps well-trained people in positions of responsibility, some of whom are quite familiar with aerial phenomena.

My Uncle Mike had ben a major in the AAF, a navigator on a B-17. He intensified my interest in astronomy, teaching me the names of stars. Because of him, I asked mom and dad for a telescope, my first, a Gilbert 80x reflector if anyone here is old enough to remember those!! One day on his desk I saw a book on Project Blue Book. He let me borrow it....

In April 2012, I and a friend, Bill, witnessed a large, boomerang-shaped object, without running lights, moving eerily slowly and in absolute silence. I'm glad the sighting included a witness, a witness who spotted it first and who pointed it out to me. It was gigantic, larger than my large hands held at arms length thump tip to thumb tip. Neither of us thought to take a picture. I literally could not take my eyes from it, for my reality was being rewritten, and watching it was plain unbelievable, but there it was!

I immediately went inside, wrote down what I saw, and then wrote a letter to my small town's newspaper.

A month or so later, I encountered a longtime friend, Ray, and his wife at my favorite coffee shop. After small talk pleasantries, his face went stone-blank, and he said, quietly, we saw it, and the five couples enjoying our backyard cookout saw it too. Ray asked if I’d noticed it fading in and out like a “malfunctioning cloaking device.” It never looked that way to me, but it had to Bill.

Later we said goodbye, but after taking a couple of steps, Ray stops, pivots, and says hey. I’ve got one more question. Did the craft make any sound. None whatsoever I answered. He nodded his head.

After returning from my honeymoon in June, a young man, Neil, who worked at a nearby liquor store walked up to the counter and the first words out of his stone face were, “Where have you been?” I laughed. On my honeymoon. You knew that. He nodded then said, “I saw it too, and with a friend thank goodness, and it didn’t make a sound.”

Besides the OMG-ness I experienced in the moment, the next eye-opener came from my sharing the story with people. People fell into three categories: the apathetic, the open-minded, and the "ain't no way that's extraterrestrial ... no freakin' way." I've experienced the latter category one-on-one and in a group setting. They truly do their best to find a "normal" explanation for my sighting, the best being a local scientist friend who explained that I had seen an "atmospheric light interference pattern and/or diffraction pattern moving with high phase velocity," which, admittedly, is quite creative.

When I relate the story to the open-minded, sometimes I hear, "Dang, I wish I could see something like that." Or, they might surprise me with a story of their own. Sometimes, they are people I've known for 20-30 years, but until I shared my story, I'd never heard them mention UFOs. Why? The fear of ridicule.

That's unfortunate, although clearly no one has any obligation to believe UFO sighting stories, Nonetheless, I know I saw it. It's part of my life experience, now. And, I know whatever it was, it defies any "normal" explanation of which I'm aware. I also know this: Few members of the "ain't no freaking way" school have investigated the best UFO sightings.

I had a friend walk away from our conversation in which he'd insisted I'd seen a B-2. I've see a B-2. It doesn't have smooth contours. It isn't quiet. It isn't as big as what I saw, and it doesn't move slowly. lol Still, he wondered what was wrong with me.

To close, people from all walks of life have made credible reports, teachers, scientists, engineers, doctors, military and civilian pilots, military and civilian air traffic controllers, police, elected officials. The list goes on and on, sober people often in positions of high responsibility. "Something" is in our skies above, the something isn't swamp gas or a diffraction pattern moving with high phase velocity, and in many instances, the something appears to be under intelligent control.

The universe is an unimaginably vast expanse. We've no reason to assume we are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Astronomers are finding planets everywhere they look. Think back fifty years. Think of the technological advances you've seen. Think how they have affected your daily life. Now, extrapolate our technology 1,000 years into the future. Pretty hard to do, isn't it? The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, so extrapolate technology 10,000 years into the future, or a million ... or a billion years.

Impossible to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Gootee
Dec 29, 2020
11
3
15
They are definitely out there.

I recently solved the Fermi Paradox and published a sampler edition of a forthcoming book, showing about four hundred samples of the hard evidence I have found. I just haven't publicized it at all, yet. So basically no one knows about it, so far.

It turns out that the extraterrestrials / aliens created a lot of artwork, in space, usually wherever there is any dust. They made many, many artworks, mostly depicting faces. I assume that at least some of those faces are self-portraits, or are portraits of other species with which they are familiar.

I spent about three man-years and carefully examined many space telescope images, at many viewing angles each, and at many magnification factors for each viewing angle. I ended up with about four thousand decent images of ET artwork, out of roughly 40,000 that I had originally cropped-out and saved. For the sampler edition of the book, I included about 400 of the images, from about twenty space telescope images.

If you study the images for a while, you will be amazed at how intelligently they were designed, especially the cleverness with which they combine multiple faces.

You can look at several dozen "preview images", for free, by looking at the "Look Inside" feature for the book, on Amazon dot com. The Paperback version's preview images are better, because they are correctly sized and four per line, but if pages 2 and 3 happen to not be included in the "Look Inside" view for that, just click on "Kindle version" at the top and look at the preview images there, which start a page or so after the end of the table of contents.

I am sorry if it sounds like I am pushing my new book, here. I really just want everyone to see these images and looking at the book's page on Amazon and using the free "Look Inside" feature is the easiest way. To find the book's page on Amazon dot com, just do a search for "Gootee ET Faces". The name of the book is "ET Faces".

Cheers,

Tom Gootee
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,553
520
2,560
Post #6 and #7 are very interesting reports. Compare with this report, Here’s what we know about the signal from Proxima Centauri | Astronomy.com

The signal has a specific sky position and arcminute size presented, known exoplanet, Proxima Centauri b. Much study has been conducted on this exoplanet already, The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Proxima Centauri b (exoplanet.eu)

Follow up observations can be done with reports like this and verified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat
Dec 29, 2020
11
3
15
That signal from Proxima Centauri is interesting. I have been interested in SETI, on and off, for much of my life. I have been working in the military electronic warfare field for the last dozen years, as a civilian electrical engineer, so I even know a little bit about RF.

I wish there was more information about the signal. An unmodulated signal isn't very interesting. It would be nice to at least know the bandwidth and the Received Signal Level (power) and then estimate what the radiated power would have to have been, for a couple of different antenna types at the source, given the known distance and the receiving antenna's gain.

If the signal doesn't do anything else, except for the noted slow increase in frequency, then it will not be nearly as interesting as it might have been. But even without modulation, if it does turn out to be from Proxima Centauri and it has a narrow bandwidth, as in, a "narrow-in-frequency" plot of its power spectrum versus frequency, with "artificial-looking" edges or skirts on either end of the occupied band, then that might be significant, just by itself.

In a way, NOT yet knowing what else they know about it means that it still might be great! In the best-case scenario, the part they described hearing might have been someone on Proxima Centauri , warming up their transmitter rig while preparing to go on the air, or testing something, or tuning their antenna feedline, with a non-modulated signal. Maybe after that, and not yet reported, the signal became modulated and now they're trying to decode and display a TV-like signal of aliens saying hello to us. <grin>

The problem with radio, and the speed of light, is that it is SO TERRIBLY SLOW, compared to the distances in space! It's not at all practical, for communicating at any interstellar distance. In post 7, above, I didn't mention the fact that, from my research, it APPEARS that probably almost everyone else already knows how to use routine faster-than-light travel. I say that because the artworks that I found are usually very, very large and very numerous and would not be practical to create unless FTL travel was commonly available. I'm not necessarily saying that they accelerate a lot and travel at high velocities that are much faster than light (although they might). Instead, they might "jump", or something, using some kind of portals or wormholes that are available "on demand". The first example artwork, viewable for free by using the book's "Look inside" feature, shows a man's head, with a shorter face of another man protruding somewhat-awkwardly at an angle from the side of the first man's head. But the main man's head measures 14.55 light years tall, which is 10.8 billion Earth diameters tall! And that is not one of the large ones. It just happened to be one that I was able to easily measure.

Cheers,

Tom
 
Maybe Earth/sun/moon/atmosphere/quiet solar system/perfect atmosphere/perfect size/breakthrough on life bottle neck/ etc etc is so freakish we are alone or neighbors are a few galaxies away or life is all over the place in bacteria format and no more.
Or aliens find us no more than a primitive place of little to no interest.
 
That signal from Proxima Centauri is interesting. I have been interested in SETI, on and off, for much of my life. I have been working in the military electronic warfare field for the last dozen years, as a civilian electrical engineer, so I even know a little bit about RF.

I wish there was more information about the signal. An unmodulated signal isn't very interesting. It would be nice to at least know the bandwidth and the Received Signal Level (power) and then estimate what the radiated power would have to have been, for a couple of different antenna types at the source, given the known distance and the receiving antenna's gain.

If the signal doesn't do anything else, except for the noted slow increase in frequency, then it will not be nearly as interesting as it might have been. But even without modulation, if it does turn out to be from Proxima Centauri and it has a narrow bandwidth, as in, a "narrow-in-frequency" plot of its power spectrum versus frequency, with "artificial-looking" edges or skirts on either end of the occupied band, then that might be significant, just by itself.

In a way, NOT yet knowing what else they know about it means that it still might be great! In the best-case scenario, the part they described hearing might have been someone on Proxima Centauri , warming up their transmitter rig while preparing to go on the air, or testing something, or tuning their antenna feedline, with a non-modulated signal. Maybe after that, and not yet reported, the signal became modulated and now they're trying to decode and display a TV-like signal of aliens saying hello to us. <grin>

The problem with radio, and the speed of light, is that it is SO TERRIBLY SLOW, compared to the distances in space! It's not at all practical, for communicating at any interstellar distance. In post 7, above, I didn't mention the fact that, from my research, it APPEARS that probably almost everyone else already knows how to use routine faster-than-light travel. I say that because the artworks that I found are usually very, very large and very numerous and would not be practical to create unless FTL travel was commonly available. I'm not necessarily saying that they accelerate a lot and travel at high velocities that are much faster than light (although they might). Instead, they might "jump", or something, using some kind of portals or wormholes that are available "on demand". The first example artwork, viewable for free by using the book's "Look inside" feature, shows a man's head, with a shorter face of another man protruding somewhat-awkwardly at an angle from the side of the first man's head. But the main man's head measures 14.55 light years tall, which is 10.8 billion Earth diameters tall! And that is not one of the large ones. It just happened to be one that I was able to easily measure.

Cheers,

Tom
If our understanding of the universe is so wrong that we are missing a simple mechanism.
We might be able to travel at many x the speed of light easily.
The universe is loaded with things but more loaded with nothing and it could be the key to any speed travel.
Time and space meaningless in space between quanta.

We just to dumb to figure it out :)
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
368
146
360
They are definitely out there.

I recently solved the Fermi Paradox and published a sampler edition of a forthcoming book, showing about four hundred samples of the hard evidence I have found. I just haven't publicized it at all, yet. So basically no one knows about it, so far.

It turns out that the extraterrestrials / aliens created a lot of artwork, in space, usually wherever there is any dust. They made many, many artworks, mostly depicting faces. I assume that at least some of those faces are self-portraits, or are portraits of other species with which they are familiar.

I spent about three man-years and carefully examined many space telescope images, at many viewing angles each, and at many magnification factors for each viewing angle. I ended up with about four thousand decent images of ET artwork, out of roughly 40,000 that I had originally cropped-out and saved. For the sampler edition of the book, I included about 400 of the images, from about twenty space telescope images.

If you study the images for a while, you will be amazed at how intelligently they were designed, especially the cleverness with which they combine multiple faces.

You can look at several dozen "preview images", for free, by looking at the "Look Inside" feature for the book, on Amazon dot com. The Paperback version's preview images are better, because they are correctly sized and four per line, but if pages 2 and 3 happen to not be included in the "Look Inside" view for that, just click on "Kindle version" at the top and look at the preview images there, which start a page or so after the end of the table of contents.

I am sorry if it sounds like I am pushing my new book, here. I really just want everyone to see these images and looking at the book's page on Amazon and using the free "Look Inside" feature is the easiest way. To find the book's page on Amazon dot com, just do a search for "Gootee ET Faces". The name of the book is "ET Faces".

Cheers,

Tom Gootee
A book based on this?


Not to criticize, but this "proof" would seem far from conclusive. If you squint just right and look at a photo of a vast, 3D object in space MANY light years from Earth, you can see something like a face...This is proof of intelligent design!

Seems a bit of a stretch. Please start a thread with some of your imagery and explanations so that we can discuss your findings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat
Dec 9, 2020
33
8
35
What proof of extra terrestrial aliens would be a validation of their existence? Lights in the sky? Photographs? Ghostly radar images? A dead body or better, a living being? Or is extra terrestrial life actually a virus brought back to Earth as a sample? Without a definition of extra terrestrial life what are we looking for? What do we expect/hope to find? Are we looking in all the wrong places?
 
Dec 29, 2020
4
1
15
Maybe Earth/sun/moon/atmosphere/quiet solar system/perfect atmosphere/perfect size/breakthrough on life bottle neck/ etc etc is so freakish we are alone or neighbors are a few galaxies away or life is all over the place in bacteria format and no more.
Or aliens find us no more than a primitive place of little to no interest.
That's a commonly raised point, however, we find technologically primitive people on Earth worth studying. No good reason exists to believe races more technologically advanced then we are wouldn't be similarly curious.
 
Dec 29, 2020
4
1
15
If our understanding of the universe is so wrong that we are missing a simple mechanism.
We might be able to travel at many x the speed of light easily.
The universe is loaded with things but more loaded with nothing and it could be the key to any speed travel.
Time and space meaningless in space between quanta.

We just to dumb to figure it out :)
Craft capable of "quantum traveling," whatever that might be, clearly wouldn't be limited by the speed of light "barrier.".
 
Craft capable of "quantum traveling," whatever that might be, clearly wouldn't be limited by the speed of light "barrier.".
Space between a quanta orbit has no time or space.
The place between a quantum jump is empty or even void space.
The nature of void space shows it exists simply because you can't have an electron jump between an orbit location.

What do you get if you could expand a region of quanta orbit space?
IMO a region of space that has no time or space restraints.(instant travel to anywhere at any speed)
Could even be the mechanism that gives gravity duality of instant connection and C travel waves in regular space.

Down side of traveling that way though might be instant speed in infinity.
Stopping might be an issue :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat
Feb 18, 2020
1,201
859
1,570
I have not read all of the above. I would post simply that communication is limited by the speed of light. Any super-light speed is entirely imaginary. Stick with facts.

Go seek Captain Kirk or stay sane. The choice is yours.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Feb 18, 2020
1,201
859
1,570
And, I would add, super light speed travel is something else entirely.

You have to decide whether the laws of physics as we understand them are 'universal or not'.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
That's a commonly raised point, however, we find technologically primitive people on Earth worth studying. No good reason exists to believe races more technologically advanced then we are wouldn't be similarly curious.
Lets pretend that 1 in a million places have a decent setup and create bacteria forms.
Maybe 1 in a million of those get intelligent life. (long term stable)
1 in a million of those are tech/intelligent life. (correct eyes/walk/hands etc etc)
They endure 1 million years as a tech species.

When we exclude all the wrong star types and the stars in the central bulge (super nova country)
We are left with with maybe 50 million viable homes in our galaxy.
.01 tech societies per galaxy.

odds could be that small easily.

If on the other hand tech societies have visited i doubt they would find us more than a curiosity.
If they could visit us they could probably visit millions of other primitive tech societies. (every other one more advanced than us)

Alien notes, Earth.. Primitive tech society...Self destructive.. Small chance for survival... Check each 50k years for survival signs.

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat
I have not read all of the above. I would post simply that communication is limited by the speed of light. Any super-light speed is entirely imaginary. Stick with facts.

Go seek Captain Kirk or stay sane. The choice is yours.

Cat :)
Well travel in space yep C speed is max (even for Kirk) :)
If Void space isn't something that can be altered or enlarged.

Communications another story.
(Spooky action at a distance) particle instant flip is being well studied at Nasa as an instant communication device.
All comes down to having fine detectors that can notice a particle flip and assign a 1 or 0 to it flipping.

Instant speed communication IMO not that far away.
We don't need 100% accuracy on the detectors, probably 60-70 % detection would work just fine with error correction.
 
Dec 29, 2020
11
3
15
A book based on this?


Not to criticize, but this "proof" would seem far from conclusive. If you squint just right and look at a photo of a vast, 3D object in space MANY light years from Earth, you can see something like a face...This is proof of intelligent design!

Seems a bit of a stretch. Please start a thread with some of your imagery and explanations so that we can discuss your findings.
This author is quite familiar with pareidolia, sir. This does not involve pareidolia. The proof is conclusive.

Apparently, someone has not examined, or has not examined well-enough, the thirty-six preview images and the two detailed, explained, officially-sourced example images, for which access has been provided in Post #7 of this thread. (That is, search for "Gootee ET Faces", at amazon dot com, and then click on the free "Look inside" link, on the book's page.)

Immediately invoking the "pareidolia" accusation, without first having carefully-enough examined the evidence provided, would not be a valid scientific approach to new information. However, in cases like this, it is expected, and that reaction was predicted in section 2.4 of the book in question. After all, space telescope images of very distant nebulas and galaxies are not perfect and are not even usually clear-enough to see small details. And here, we're not talking about seeing actual beings or their clear faces, nor clear photographs of them, and not even paintings or sketches of any beings' faces. Instead, these are huge artworks of faces, made out of DUST and gases. Even just magnifying them to be slightly too large makes them almost impossible to perceive. A few of them are VERY easy to perceive but most of them are just not very obvious. If they had been extremely easy to see, then everyone would already know about them.

I am also certain that they are easier for me to perceive than they are for most other people, because I have been looking at them for three man-years. And I have proved to myself that I have gotten much better at spotting them, over those three years of work. Maybe the bottom line is that they might not be obvious-enough, to most casual observers, and might actually require that some amount of additional time be used to study them more carefully, before they can be perceived well-enough by someone who is relatively unfamiliar with them. I did try to frame them and size them for easier perception but "your mileage may vary".

But, more to your point:

Firstly, there are far too many intelligence-indicating features in the artworks' designs, for them to not have been created by intelligent beings. But that is something that each person might only be able to learn by actually inspecting the images, rather than from words that I might post. I will consider trying to make a video "tutorial" or something. However, the two spectacular Example Images sections of the book, just after the Preview Images section, in the no-cost "Look inside" link on the book's Amazon page, contain "obvious" proof of intelligent design that could only be denied by someone who refused to look at them.

You might have to look at both the "Print Book" and "Kindle Book" tabs, in the "Look inside" pages, at Amazon, in order to see both of the example images' sections, depending on what pages the "Look inside" feature is showing, that day. They both also include separate cropped face images, from the amazing multiple faces that are in each example image. Also included are the original NASA source image links, and smaller versions of those original source images, with the locations marked, where the example images were cropped-out of them.

In the book, I did address some of the commonly-seen intelligent "features" and artistic "methods" that appear to have been used, when the faces were created. Here are descriptions of some of them: 1. Often, the half of a face that is to our right (i.e. the left side of the face) will be a second face, in profile (i.e. a side view), looking to our left, often sharing the nose and part of the mouth, and one eye, with the full face that faces toward us. 2. Often, there will be an additional face on the right and/or left side of a face or head, sharing one or both of the eyes. 3. (Very common) Often the mouth of a face will also serve as the eyes (or one eye) of another face. (See Example 2.) 4. (Very common) Often, part of a face will be a complete, smaller face.

Secondly, there is "the probability argument": Finding a single detailed, recognizable face, in a dust cloud in space, that has most or all of the right face parts in the right places but which was randomly created by nature and NOT by intelligent extraterrestrials might be very improbable but is still definitely possible. However, if there were a larger number of such faces, in one image, or in one dust cloud, or as sub-faces in one face, then the probability that they were all made randomly by nature and NOT by any intelligence quickly becomes impossibly small, as their number increases.

How many recognizable face artworks in one area in space would be considered to be "proof" of intelligent beings involvement? Well, I would first have to estimate the probability of there being one good-enough face that was NOT made by any intelligence, in order to answer that, numerically. But I was easily and quickly able to find 54 of them in a single NASA space telescope image of a portion of the Omega Nebula, even when looking at only one of the eight orientations that I usually examine, and looking at only one magnification value (instead of the 20% to 600% range that I would typically examine for each orientation. Even considering a probability of "1 over 10 to the 50th power" as the statistical standard for "impossible", I am certain that it is impossible that all of those faces were created without any help from any intelligent beings. (And I will include about 4,000 images of ET-created face artworks in my upcoming publication, with about 200 from each of about 20 NASA or ESA space telescope images of nebulas and galaxies, while about 400 of those images are already published.)

I would love to post some of the images, here, but I have heard stories about online social media sites claiming that they own the rights to all of the material that users post, and I'm no attorney. But in case I change my mind, how DO I post an image, here, from my hard drive? I only saw how to post a link to an online image, which would not be ideal.

Respectfully,

Tom Gootee
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,553
520
2,560
Well, we have 21 post here already. I like to use these exoplanet sites to review thinking about space aliens and spaceships traveling around communicating with earthlings. http://exoplanet.eu/, and , https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html

The .eu site shows 4395 exoplanets confirmed and max distance is 35882 light-years from earth (for the most distant confirmed exoplanet). Using 10,000 pc radius from earth, the cubic volume of space as measured around earth in a sphere is 4.19E+12 cubic parsecs. Allowing each cubic parsec to have one exoplanet in the host star's HZ (habitable zone, I am being very generous here), we have potentially more than 4 trillion habitable worlds in that volume of space, far more than the 4395 confirmed exoplanets and most of these are not in their parent star's HZ. Using 4 trillion habitable worlds in 4.19E+12 cubic parsecs around earth, how many will have space aliens traveling around and communicating now? :) To start the answer, Earth is one, at least within our solar system and to the Moon :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginethat

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
368
146
360
This author is quite familiar with pareidolia, sir. This does not involve pareidolia. The proof is conclusive.

Apparently, someone has not examined, or has not examined well-enough, the thirty-six preview images and the two detailed, explained, officially-sourced example images, for which access has been provided in Post #7 of this thread. (That is, search for "Gootee ET Faces", at amazon dot com, and then click on the free "Look inside" link, on the book's page.)

Immediately invoking the "pareidolia" accusation, without first having carefully-enough examined the evidence provided, would not be a valid scientific approach to new information. However, in cases like this, it is expected, and that reaction was predicted in section 2.4 of the book in question. After all, space telescope images of very distant nebulas and galaxies are not perfect and are not even usually clear-enough to see small details. And here, we're not talking about seeing actual beings or their clear faces, nor clear photographs of them, and not even paintings or sketches of any beings' faces. Instead, these are huge artworks of faces, made out of DUST and gases. Even just magnifying them to be slightly too large makes them almost impossible to perceive. A few of them are VERY easy to perceive but most of them are just not very obvious. If they had been extremely easy to see, then everyone would already know about them.

I am also certain that they are easier for me to perceive than they are for most other people, because I have been looking at them for three man-years. And I have proved to myself that I have gotten much better at spotting them, over those three years of work. Maybe the bottom line is that they might not be obvious-enough, to most casual observers, and might actually require that some amount of additional time be used to study them more carefully, before they can be perceived well-enough by someone who is relatively unfamiliar with them. I did try to frame them and size them for easier perception but "your mileage may vary".

But, more to your point:

Firstly, there are far too many intelligence-indicating features in the artworks' designs, for them to not have been created by intelligent beings. But that is something that each person might only be able to learn by actually inspecting the images, rather than from words that I might post. I will consider trying to make a video "tutorial" or something. However, the two spectacular Example Images sections of the book, just after the Preview Images section, in the no-cost "Look inside" link on the book's Amazon page, contain "obvious" proof of intelligent design that could only be denied by someone who refused to look at them.

You might have to look at both the "Print Book" and "Kindle Book" tabs, in the "Look inside" pages, at Amazon, in order to see both of the example images' sections, depending on what pages the "Look inside" feature is showing, that day. They both also include separate cropped face images, from the amazing multiple faces that are in each example image. Also included are the original NASA source image links, and smaller versions of those original source images, with the locations marked, where the example images were cropped-out of them.

In the book, I did address some of the commonly-seen intelligent "features" and artistic "methods" that appear to have been used, when the faces were created. Here are descriptions of some of them: 1. Often, the half of a face that is to our right (i.e. the left side of the face) will be a second face, in profile (i.e. a side view), looking to our left, often sharing the nose and part of the mouth, and one eye, with the full face that faces toward us. 2. Often, there will be an additional face on the right and/or left side of a face or head, sharing one or both of the eyes. 3. (Very common) Often the mouth of a face will also serve as the eyes (or one eye) of another face. (See Example 2.) 4. (Very common) Often, part of a face will be a complete, smaller face.

Secondly, there is "the probability argument": Finding a single detailed, recognizable face, in a dust cloud in space, that has most or all of the right face parts in the right places but which was randomly created by nature and NOT by intelligent extraterrestrials might be very improbable but is still definitely possible. However, if there were a larger number of such faces, in one image, or in one dust cloud, or as sub-faces in one face, then the probability that they were all made randomly by nature and NOT by any intelligence quickly becomes impossibly small, as their number increases.

How many recognizable face artworks in one area in space would be considered to be "proof" of intelligent beings involvement? Well, I would first have to estimate the probability of there being one good-enough face that was NOT made by any intelligence, in order to answer that, numerically. But I was easily and quickly able to find 54 of them in a single NASA space telescope image of a portion of the Omega Nebula, even when looking at only one of the eight orientations that I usually examine, and looking at only one magnification value (instead of the 20% to 600% range that I would typically examine for each orientation. Even considering a probability of "1 over 10 to the 50th power" as the statistical standard for "impossible", I am certain that it is impossible that all of those faces were created without any help from any intelligent beings. (And I will include about 4,000 images of ET-created face artworks in my upcoming publication, with about 200 from each of about 20 NASA or ESA space telescope images of nebulas and galaxies, while about 400 of those images are already published.)

I would love to post some of the images, here, but I have heard stories about online social media sites claiming that they own the rights to all of the material that users post, and I'm no attorney. But in case I change my mind, how DO I post an image, here, from my hard drive? I only saw how to post a link to an online image, which would not be ideal.

Respectfully,

Tom Gootee
I understand your position, but the scientific significance of your claims are squishy, at best.

I saw the images/excerpts. They are well presented, but certainly not definitive of the stated claims.

Still, your observations are warranted for discussion and sharing within the community.

I am not a lawyer either, but we don't host images here. Only the text of threads/posts.

Images are hosted elsewere (external sites) and simply linked here. I would assume copyrights would be retained in such a relationship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,553
520
2,560
Concerning comments in post #23, perhaps space.com can publish an *official* article here on the topic. Dust clouds in space face a very harsh environment like photoevaporation and dissipation, example activity in M42 in Orion or other areas observed in the interstellar medium. What would be the expected lifetime for *space art* to survive where earthlings would see and understand the message?, What is the min distance from earth? What is the max image distance?, etc. Specific sky positions are needed (celestial coordinate system) and follow up observations using different equipment and perhaps different wavelengths of light too. How long have these space art images been documented?
 
Dec 29, 2020
11
3
15
I understand your position, but the scientific significance of your claims are squishy, at best.

I saw the images/excerpts. They are well presented, but certainly not definitive of the stated claims.

Still, your observations are warranted for discussion and sharing within the community.

I am not a lawyer either, but we don't host images here. Only the text of threads/posts.

Images are hosted elsewere (external sites) and simply linked here. I would assume copyrights would be retained in such a relationship.
Thank you for responding. You might be right, at least partially. I did kind-of rush the material into publication, in a somewhat raw form and with almost no analysis or commentary, because I mainly just wanted to quickly make others aware of the existence of the artworks, once I thought that I had gathered enough material.

My main question is, how could the scientific significance be improved?

I have basically taken the last month off, after working for three-plus man-years during my spare time, over the last two and a half years. But I do have the images for the full-length publication almost ready. They include roughly four thousand cropped artwork images.

If I could make it all more scientifically significant, before it was published, that might be worth pursuing.

Regards,

Tom Gootee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY