"Out of Africa" Theory Officially Debunked

[Iguana]

Sorry, I can't since I'm no longer global moderator!

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, what form of evidence is convincing to you, personally?

An alien spaceship hovering near a large human city with lots of reliable media reports and photos etc.

[TylerDurden]

?? I’m not aware of any studies/projects concluding that, although as I said, I did read all the serious books I found on that issue. Please let us know which specific studies you talk about. 
It doesn’t necessarily imply an alien origin, but it’s the most likely hypothesis, the most simple and the one best explaining the facts . What other hypothesis would you suggest for confirmed sights, radar records and physical traces that “could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon”? If it’s not natural and not man-made, then under what new category would you classify it? How would you name this new category?

  I cannot recall the titles of those studies. Just that  there was one British one and one American one, both airforce-based.

And, no, the alien hypothesis is not the simplest  of conclusions, it is the most difficult one to come up  with, and the most unlikely.  The small number of genuinely unexplained ones will inevitably fall into a category of those natural or manmade  events that current science or current observation cannot explain. Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances.

[nummi]

You plainly confuse science with scientism!

Truth is I don't even know what scientism is, other than it's regarded as something similar to religions... Can't confuse something with something I don't even know what it is.

Learning about this and much else, I've got it sort of planned, mid august mind first into all kinds of stuff, without a deadline (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net as it has a lot of information). Until then some diet and lifestyle corrections. Some later time, don't know when, when I've more or less exhausted that site and possibly some others, I'll probably start looking toward books.

As scientists determine what science really is then this means they can correct it. And they are correcting it, though it takes effort to get rid of preconceptions and biases and lies already prevalent. Slow progress. Eventually they should get to a point where "science" has to be rewritten down to the very foundation, as already some, if not all, founding principles are false (in the regard how people are taught science and how because of that they easily become to see the world). I remember what and how science was taught in school, a bit in university also, it's just messed up nonsense to an extensive degree, omits so much relevant, focuses on what isn't relevant, etc. All to form biases into people, to keep them from seeing the world as it actually is.

There probably is a thread about UFOs, but the problem with these kinds of topics is that they are all interconnected. It's hard to stay in one topic if something relevant to it pops up from another.
Also, if someone is ignoring the obvious or has a different understanding of something or is lacking some relevant information then it always tends to divert to "what is evidence" and "what is science" or similar, and onward from there. It's the "why can't you understand?"
The more I argue the more I realize how pointless arguing is. Best to do research, look at possibilities and impossibilities and not ignore anything relevant, and figure out myself. More or less...

[Iguana]

  I cannot recall the titles of those studies. Just that th there was one British one and one American one, both airforce-based.

Looks like you are badly informed and that you don’t even seek infos because you didn’t have a look at the links I provided. There were at least 3 US Air Force reports, which are listed in the Wikipedia page about J. Allen Hynek that I provided the link for.  There is also the US official Condon Committee report I mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee. And then there is the French COMETA report http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm

Originally published in France in 1999, the Cometa Report (titled UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For?) made a valuable contribution to the subject of UFOs.
The following is extracted from an opening statement contained in the report from French Air Force General Denis Letty and gives valuable background data on Cometa and its findings.

    “The accumulation of well-documented sightings made by credible witnesses forces us to consider from now on all of the hypotheses regarding the origin of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in particular.”

The document continues:

    Although no characterized threat has been perceived to date in France, it seemed necessary to the former auditors of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale (IHEDN) to take stock of the subject. Along with qualified experts from extremely varied backgrounds, they are grouped together to form a private in-depth fact-finding committee, which was christened COMETA. This committee was transformed into a COMETA association, which I chair.

COMETA members included:

            Air Force General Bruno Le Moine, weapons engineer

            General Pierre Bescond

            Chief of Police Denis Blancher

Those who contributed to the study included:

            Edmond Campagnac, former Technical Director of Air France

            Squadron Commander Michel Perrier

            Air Force General Joseph Domage

Among the subjects covered within the report are: the testimony of French pilots who had seen UFOs; close encounters in France; aeronautical cases from around the world; radar-based UFO incidents; and political, religious and scientific implications relating to the UFO mystery.

And, no, the alien hypothesis is not the simplest conclusions, it is the most difficult one to come up  with, and the most unlikely.

How do you come up with such an strongly affirmative statement which is  just the opposite of mine? What is the most likely hypothesis, according to you? Did you seriously study the matter? Did you even read the first of Hynek books? Any other books or reports? Please, inform yourself before talking about a subject you seem to know very little about! 

The small number of genuinely unexplained ones will inevitably fall into a category of those natural or manmade events that current science or current observation cannot explain.

Isn’t that statement of yours in total contradiction with your former one below ?

All that one can state is that a very small percentage of the sights they checked could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon.

Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances. Logically, one can assume that, given a few more decades of scientific advancement, the percentage chance of real unexplained events occurring will be much smaller as improved technology etc. will better explain formerly unexplainable circumstances.

Hmmh… this could be seen as a good example of scientism for Nummi!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Anyway, the UFO sightings that "could not be attributed to a manmade or nature-made phenomenon" can be well explained today by the extraterrestrial hypothesis. What is so odd about it for you? The Earth is very far from being the only object in the universe! Future hypothetical explanations are irrelevant: the scientific method commands to provisionally take a currently available explanation  rather than say that it can’t be explained now but will be in the future.

[Iguana]

See this article reporting events which have been documented elsewhere:

Top U.S. airmen to accuse Air Force of cover-up as they claim UFOs have been deactivating nuclear missiles since 1948

By Daniel Bates
Updated: 14:58 GMT, 28 September 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1315479/Aliens-interfered-weapons-UFOs-deactivating-nuclear-missiles.html#ixzz39anblVDi

An interesting reader's comment below the article:

"The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming... A very large number of sightings have been vouched for by persons whose credentials seem to me unimpeachable. It is striking that so many have been trained observers, such as police officers and airline or military pilots. Their observations have in many instances... been supported either by technical means such as radar or, even more convincingly, by... interference with electrical apparatus of one sort or another..." From the foreword to a book written by British UFO researcher Timothy Good, Above Top Secret, in 1987.

Lord Hill-Norton (GCB), Chief of Defense Staff, Ministry of Defense, Britain; Chairman, Military Committee of NATO; Admiral of the Fleet; Member of House of Lords.

[TylerDurden]

You are missing the point. For UFOs to exist over here, one has to postulate aliens with a far higher technology level, capable of FTL travel. That assumption requires  not only the existence of life elsewhere, but also the existence of intelligent life, plus the ability to travel at FTL speeds, the curiosity needed to investigate humanity(after all, the logical stance of an alien civilisation towards humanity would be indifference). The "Great Filter" theory  not only explains why advanced aliens are NOT over here but also helpfully  explains why no mass  interstellar communications  have ever  been detected by  SETI etc.

[Iguana]

Tyler, I gave you the link for this paper of Jean-Pierre Petit, former head of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), expert on MHD, cosmology and other topics, author of several peer review papers published by reviews such as ‘Physical letters A’:

Interstellar Travel Problem
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/interstellar_travel/interstellar_travel1bis.htm

The existence of life elsewhere is increasingly considered probable; amino acids have been found on meteorites and we know now there is water on some extra-solar-system planets. That of aliens with a far higher technology level is a logical inference because thinking we are the most advanced species in the whole universe is extremely unlikely and stupidly anthropocentric. If more advanced societies exist in the Galaxy, they would of course have discovered us before we discover them.

A theory can explain “why advanced aliens are NOT over here but also helpfully  explains why no mass  interstellar communications  have ever  been detected by  SETI”, but what is the value of such a theory if aliens are in fact over here and don’t communicate in the way we suppose they would? You even suppose no aliens would “have he curiosity needed to investigate humanity”! It looks like ourselves are extremely interested in investigating hunter-gatherers societies and would be even more curious to investigate extra-terrestrial beings and societies!

Facts prevail on suppositions and unverified theories, so check the facts first and theorize consequently afterwards.

With all due respect, I consider the opinion of high ranking military commanders, astronomers, trained observers such as airline and military pilots, police officers, etc. more valuable than that of someone like you who pronounce a definitive and absolute verdict without having really studied the topic and the reported facts.   

[TylerDurden]

I did not state that mine was a definitive viewpoint, it wasn't. It was simply the most logical viewpoint, that was all.
 Your viewpoint that advanced aliens exist and travel to Earth all the time requires far more proof in order to  have even a slight chance of being seriously considered. For example, ships going at FTL speeds ought to be exhibiting Cerenkov radiation. The Drake equation points out numerous barriers to the notion of aliens and humans ever being able to interact. For example, it points out that civilisations, like species, have a finite lifetime, so, for all we know,  different galactic planets might  only produce  intelligent life once every 100 million years or so before that sentient life ultimately becoming extinct and never leaving their home solar system.
The point is that aliens are by definition alien by nature and would therefore be extremely unlikely to possess the same characteristics as humans re curiosity or whatever.  In terms of resources, any aliens travelling the stars would likely have access  to an infinite amount of resources(see the Drake Equation and things like the Dyson Sphere). for example), so they would not need to be hostile to humans in order to get extra resources, and there would be no need to be friendly either. Indeed, the sheer alienness of the alien would mean they likely would neither understand us or  even ever  want to communicate with us.

[Iguana]

I did not state that mine was a definitive viewpoint, it wasn't. It was simply the most logical viewpoint, that was all.
 Your viewpoint that advanced aliens exist and travel to Earth all the time requires far more proof in order to  have even a slight chance of being seriously considered. For example, ships going at FTL speeds ought to be exhibiting Cerenkov radiation.

For macroscopic objects, even approaching the speed of light is not possible, and that is certainly a law of physics that nothing can change. But there might be other ways to travel over astronomic distances in a reasonably short time, ways that we currently ignore or could only guess, for example in JP Petit cosmological model with twin universe: ours of matter and its twin of anti-matter (an idea originally due to Andreï Sakharov). 
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/a301.htm

The Drake equation points out numerous barriers to the notion of aliens and humans ever being able to interact. For example, it points out that civilisations, like species, have a finite lifetime, so, for all we know,  different galactic planets might  only produce  intelligent life once every 100 million years or so before that sentient life ultimately becoming extinct and never leaving their home solar system.

The Drake equation, or Green Bank equation, is based on a whole set of conjectures. Anyway, most advanced civilizations possibly or probably destroy their environment and thus self-destroy before being able to travel to other solar systems. This process that some have called “galactic selection” (for example Harrison in “Cosmology, the Science of the Universe” http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/cosmology-relativity-and-gravitation/cosmology-science-universe-2nd-edition) would ensure that civilizations able to travel in a galaxy are not destructive. Even if the race at their origin goes into extinction as, yes, every living species has a limited lifetime, possibly another race could carry over their technology. Just conjectures again, but who knows?     

The point is that aliens are by definition alien by nature and would therefore be extremely unlikely to possess the same characteristics as humans re curiosity or whatever.

Yes, and it also means we can’t know their psychology and motives by analogy with ours. Perhaps they are less curious than us… or are perhaps they are more curious! Most intelligent animals are curious, though, and the more intelligent they are, the more curious they appear to be - and it seems to be the same for human individuals!   

In terms of resources, any aliens travelling the stars would likely have access  to an infinite amount of resources(see the Drake Equation and things like the Dyson Sphere). for example), so they would not need to be hostile to humans in order to get extra resources, and there would be no need to be friendly either. Indeed, the sheer alienness of the alien would mean they likely would neither understand us or  even ever  want to communicate with us.

If they were really hostile, they would probably have destroyed us long ago. They don’t appear to be very friendly either. We can understand the behavior of animals, but animals can’t understand much of ours. So, logically, a more intelligent/advanced race would understand our behavior and motives but we would be unlikely to understand theirs. In fact, it looks like it’s happening exactly this way.

Again , check the reports and facts about UFOs first and go into conjectures, hypothesis and theories afterwards. The irrational opposite method would be like asserting in 1522 that we can’t circumnavigate around the world because it’s flat and thus Magellan expedition is a hoax. 

Interesting discussion, by the way!   

[sabertooth]

"The UFO challenges the assumptions of science" Terence Mckenna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYJqhMAgOcs

[TylerDurden]

Moving to a universe of antimatter from one of matter would blow up any aliens!

So far, it does seem extraordinarily unlikely that FTL travel can ever happen, let alone similiar nonsense such as wormhole travel. This greatly reduces the chance of aliens ever going near us.

The Fermi Paradox has a large number of possibilities, most of which have a much higher chance of being the case than the notion of aliens being among us.

[Iguana]

Moving to a universe of antimatter from one of matter would blow up any aliens!

Yes.

[PaleoPhil]

Haplogroups would be useful organizational tools in a multiregional model, but.... the commonly accepted alphanumeric haplogroup nomenclature is designed for the Out-of-Africa migration maps. Personally, I don't know what this would entail, but I imagine that it would be exponentially more complex to have a more realistic model with multiple points of human origin. As it stands now, the evaluation of haplogroups is strongly supportive of migration from a single original point.

Link to a haplogroup map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#mediaviewer/File:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

Yes, I'm familiar with the Out-of-Africa Y-DNA-haplogroup tree model. What I meant was, the multiregional proponents could create and support their own tree based on their views, which would be a more complex model, like you indicated. This is a start, though it doesn't have the haplogroups on it:



It would be interesting to see the alternative.