UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life

RTN wrote:
Why do they buzz nuclear facilities? Are they concerned people will develop nuclear warheads that can be used to strike the planets these UFOs come from?

This is what some people and even the phenomenon is said to claim but The Alien Grand Design considers anti-nuclear activities a mere facade.

Tsavo Lion wrote:IMO, they r monitoring our capabilities & developments in case they need to stop us from nuking ourselves, as they need us alive, for whatever reason.

I don't think we'll ever nuke ourselves and any ET concern is for their own longterm security. But it's possible that book is right and it's just part of a show.

Tsavo Lion wrote:There were several close calls since 1945 when nukes were just hours or minutes away from being used,

When, the Cuban missile crisis and late in the '73 Mideast war? I don't think either brought us that close to the brink.

It didn't take much brains to realize, as Petrov did, that a report of just six incoming missiles was a false alarm instead of an actual attack which would've involved far more. I don't think ETs are much concerned about us nuking ourselves, or attacking them. If they were it would be easy to liquidate all n-arsenals. The Alien Grand Design has a more credible explanation for ET "anti-nuclear" activities.

RTN wrote:
Credible explanation? The explanation is credible based on what - obviously, speculation.

The book shows the alternatives make no sense and its explanation fits into a broader pattern of ET activity.

Maybe Aliens are concerned about us nuking each other because in future they want to populate Earth with their kind and obviously a nuclear scorched Earth won't help matters.

If they wanted Earth just for themselves they would've eliminated us and taken it long ago.

Maybe they are already extracting resources from Earth and a nuclear war will disturb/end such activities.

So would human activity or power in general. Again if Earth and its resources are of interest and we aren't, they'd have long gotten rid of us.

RTN wrote:
All the hypothesis surrounding aliens cannot and should not revolve around just one book. There should be more verifiable sources.

The book mentions just about all that can be verified.

... there are probably several more scholars who have carried out an in depth, honest study about aliens.

You should really read the aforementioned book. In UFOlogy all prominent work is highly deceptive. This was true of Ruppelt, Keyhoe, Friedman, KDR….As The Alien Grand Design shows, they were all government operatives. It is extremely naive to think the government would tolerate any prominent figure or work that reveals the secrets it strives to keep clouded.

No concrete evidence to suggest

b) That most of these aliens regardless of their home planet is superior than Earthlings; and

The fact they are apparently masters of interstellar travel when we still don't really have a clue indicates otherwise. Aliens may not be inherently superior in terms of longterm capability but compared to us they're virtually almighty….

Maybe aliens have achieved "mastery" in several areas but not in weapons development.

This is extremely naive especially considering that on Earth war has often been a potent stimulus to invention. Now I do believe ETs prefer a peaceful way to solve issues. But they are quite willing and able to kill if need be.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
If true, it follows that those that didn't self-destruct or perished in cataclysms must be very old.

I always considered the "self-destruct" fate of many civilizations (which Sagan considered likely) be be temporocentric, reflecting Cold War anxieties.
As for the age of the first civilizations it wouldn't be surprising if they are very old. Years ago I asked astronomers "At what point in the history of the Universe did nucleosynthesis provide enough biogenic elements for the origin of life?" One answer "It all happened very fast…"

Interesting how the Russians spell "Titan," "Miranda" etc.

There is no paradox. CO2 was never going to go away. In fact, as demonstrated by coal and oil life acted to sequester it as
fossil carbon. So life was literally cutting the branch on which it was sitting. If the CO2 got too low, then life would be suppressed
and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would increase resulting in the return of milder and better for life conditions.

This is exactly what you saw during the "Snowball Earth" events billions of years ago. The faint young Sun was not maintaining
the temperatures, it was CO2 (and the H2O vapour loading it induces). Too low CO2 resulted in runaway ice formation due to
the albedo feedback. Only the near equatorial belt was relatively ice free. The rest of the planet was covered with a massive
land and sea ice cover. Over time, volcanic emissions of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere resulting in a transition to a greenhouse
event that resulted in the melting of the ice. There is direct evidence of the consequences of this since there was a surge of
chemical weathering of rocks by the high CO2 levels in the atmosphere resulting in more carbonic acid in rain water. This
chemical weathering also helped to reduce the CO2 levels.

The 30% higher solar emissions in the visible band allow us to have a non-frozen climate even with relatively low CO2 levels
of around 300 ppmv. And we have had the ice sheet cycle over the last 3.3 million years since this level of CO2 is low enough
to allow for orbital perturbations to grow land ice and lowered temperatures resulting in a sequestration of CO2 into ocean water
which leads to a cooling feedback. By the same token, human dumping of CO2 into the air at over 30 billion tons per year
(vs 600 million tons on average for volcanoes) is going to slam us with severe global warming. We are no longer in an epoch
where concentrations of CO2 in the thousands of ppmv range are conducive to life. But when the Sun was younger we
had lush conditions on the planet with such concentrations.

The story of climate and life on Earth is bound to CO2. If too much CO2 gets sequestered in the coming millions of years
then Earth can be an ice age Hell. This in spite of the solar output. The Sun is not increasing its emissions of visible band
light that fast and it will take billions of years for it to become a red giant. But plate tectonics will not stop like on Mars
since we have more than enough radioactive decay and Earth interior volume to keep mantle convection going for billions
of years. So we can have volcanism induced global warming extinctions in the future such as the ones that occurred during
the Siberian and Deccan traps.

Instead of a paradox, there is the chance event of having a planet of the right size and chemical composition in the right
orbit. Since there are so many Earth-like planets out there, this is not such a low chance. The chance of getting a
satellite moon which acts to stabilize the axis of rotation of the Earth is a substantial element. Over time the Moon
is moving away from the Earth, but this process is very slow so the impact on climate in the coming billion years from
this process is not going to be a factor.

Then there is the chance of not being exposed to a supernova in our stellar neighbourhood.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Long before becoming a red giant, it'll become hotter, making our life here progressively more difficult, if not impossible.

Unless a future civilization can do something about it, habitable conditions here will probably end in about half a billion years.
Btw while it is true that Proxima b is tidally locked and it seems fantastically improbable that another civilization could've arisen so close, any intelligence on Proxima b needn't necessarily be indigenous.

A bit reminiscent of the Shag Harbour sightings of '67.

What a joke--the latest in a long line of them. Claims of impending disclosure go at least as far back as 1976.

"No unified, comprehensive process for gathering and analyzing intelligence on UAPs…despite the potential threat." Great disinfo. The Alien Grand Design reveals the purpose of statements like that.