Exoplanets Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design

Researchers: We might find extraterrestrial life in 5 to 10 years

Spread the love

The new James Webb Space Telescope, which launches in October, “could feasibly detect ammonia around six gas dwarf planets after just a few orbits”:

Gas dwarf planets have the potential to foster life. But because none of these super-Earths or mini-Neptunes exist within our solar system, scientists struggle to determine whether their atmospheres contain ammonia and other potential signs of living things.

American Physical Society, “Scientists may detect signs of extraterrestrial life in the next 5 to 10 years” at ScienceDaily

We shall see. It would be great to find them, but if we don’t, is that evidence too?

See also: SETI director warns: Those aliens could be malevolent. Harvard astronomer agrees: We’ve sent a lot of signals in recent years; they may have got them. But now what? Astronomer Avi Loeb has a low-risk practical idea: Look for alien debris on our still, lifeless, atmosphere-free Moon

28 Replies to “Researchers: We might find extraterrestrial life in 5 to 10 years

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    “We Might Find Extraterrestrial Life In 5 To 10 Years”

    this reminds me on what Nobel laureate and famous origin-of-life researcher Jack Szostak said in 2014:

    “Life in the lab in 3 to 5 years, and more likely within 3 years”. He said that in 2014.

    Today, in 2021, he got nothing.

    https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1406/S00007/jack-szostak-life-in-lab-in-3-5-years.htm

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    In other words, “More grants needed!”

  3. 3
    William J Murray says:

    “We [the authorities] Might [officially confirm the existence of] Extraterrestrial Life In 5 To 10 Years”

    Fixed it.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    LoL! Extraterrestrial life has already found us.

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    ET: Extraterrestrial life has already found us.

    Why do you think so? Just curious.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    It’s called evidence, JVL. The US Navy just leaked photos of UFOs. Astronauts have seen UFOs. They have been here for a long time, according to the evidence. Or do you think the Mayans came up with their calendar all by themselves?

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    ET: It’s called evidence, JVL. The US Navy just leaked photos of UFOs. Astronauts have seen UFOs. They have been here for a long time, according to the evidence. Or do you think the Mayans came up with their calendar all by themselves?

    You don’t have to be rude; I’m just asking which evidence you find compelling. I’m not getting at you or trying to debunk you. I just wondered what convinced you that Earth has been visited by beings from another solar system.

    I do think the Mayans came up with their idiosyncratic time measurement system on their own. But I’m interested in why you think they didn’t.

    Have you looked at much of what Graham Hancock has written? Erich von Daniken seems a bit old now but I well remember his arguments.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Wow. You have serious issues if you think I was being rude. Please explain why you think that the Mayans came up with a calendar that required advanced astronomy and intimate knowledge of cosmology.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    ET: Wow. You have serious issues if you think I was being rude.

    Okay, you weren’t being rude; you did just sound a bit dismissive.

    Please explain why you think that the Mayans came up with a calendar that required advanced astronomy and intimate knowledge of cosmology.

    I’m more interested in why you think they didn’t but . . . the historical and archaeological evidence I don’t think supports any outside, alien interventions. Plus our knowledge of the extreme distances and travel time involved make it seem even more unlikely. Finally, I don’t think the astronomy is beyond the capabilities of humans around at that time and from what I’ve read in the academic record that is generally accepted. So, in the end, I just don’t see the evidence that there were any non-Earth beings around at the time. But, again, why do you think aliens were around then?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    You haven’t looked, obviously.

    Mayans had a calendar round and yet didn’t have wheels for transport…

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    ET: You haven’t looked, obviously.

    Alright.

    Mayans had a calendar round and yet didn’t have wheels for transport…

    What? What does that have to do with anything?

    I was just interested in why you think the Earth has been visited by alien beings. That’s it. Why you have to get rude and dismissive is beyond me.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    I told you why I think the earth has been and is being visited by beings with technology we don’t have. Google will unveil a plethora of evidence. There is by far more evidence for UFO’s and extraterrestrials than there is for blind and mindless processes producing eukaryotes from given populations of prokaryotes.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    ET,

    here is what bothers me:

    there were lots of UFO sightings in the past… today, suddenly, when everybody has a phone with a high-resolution camcorder built in (not some low res VHS camcorder), no UFO sightings… i would expect the contrary …

    In regards to advanced technology used in the past by various ancient civilizations, i think that you and other people just underestimate ancient civilizations …

    Give me an example, what you personally consider as a strongest evidence for ET- presence on Earth…

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Martin_r- If you notice people with smartphones they ain’t looking up. They are all looking at their phones.

    The strongest evidence for ETs on earth? The bodies and the crashed UFOs that have been recovered around the world.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    ET: The bodies and the crashed UFOs that have been recovered around the world.

    Too bad they are available for study. As many people (like Martin_r) have said: if you didn’t witness it how do you know it’s true?

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Too bad they AREN’T available for study. Ooops.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Umm, they have been studied. Look, I don’t care that people deny the evidence.

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    ET: Umm, they have been studied. Look, I don’t care that people deny the evidence.

    Photos? Reports? Materials analysis?

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Get a security clearance and buy a vowel.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    ET: Get a security clearance and buy a vowel.

    So . . . that means you don’t have the evidence? When you had a security clearance did you see the evidence?

  21. 21
    doubter says:

    It seems to be time to again repeat a summary of the ETI UFO evidence I posted a while ago. I welcome plausible alternate explanations for some of the cases mentioned here, and of course this is just the tip of an iceberg.

    It is unfortunate that such a vast, deep and ultimately alarming topic can be so easily glossed over. UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis for them refuse to go away, because many real physical encounters obstinately continue to occur (especially with Navy and Air Force aircraft), and continue to exhibit flight characteristics vastly beyond current or any projected technology.

    The extraterrestrial hypothesis remains the most plausible one as the explanation for the major category of UFO-related phenomena, vehicle sightings and encounters especially with optical media, radar and EMI interaction.

    Some of the theoretical arguments against the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) for UFOs are that there is zero knowledge of other life much less other intelligent life, if it actually exists it is apparently impossible for it to get here, the apparent ridiculousness and absurdity of some of the phenomena (such as alien abductions, many UFOnaut encounter accounts, brilliant “advertising” lights), the supposed parapsychological connection, and the supposed similarities with historical accounts of things like fairy sightings.

    But as far as I am concerned real data, evidence, always trumps theory. These following cases and many others of the same sort were real events in the world, in space-time, occurring to real people that presented as described. Their testimony and other evidence can’t reasonably be dismissed just because they appear fantastic or theoretically preposterous. Especially with good observers like pilots and police officers (sometimes multiple) whose testimony would otherwise be accepted in a court of law. The burden is on the skeptic to credibly demonstrate how these cases are actually misperceptions, hallucinations, errors, hoaxes, useless anecdotes, etc. And on the skeptic of the ETH to come up with a more credible general explanation for the many cases of physical interaction with physical apparent vehicles.

    Some people have observed strange apparently structured material objects in the atmosphere that give the strong impression of being vehicles, somebody else’s hardware.

    The best cases stand on their own merits as evidence that on some rare occasions what seem to be alien vehicles appear to humans, sometimes producing physical effects including radar returns, radio interference, ground traces and leaving images preserved on photographic film or electronic media.

    For a detailed summary scientific review and analysis of the various types of physical evidence related to UFOs, there was the Sturrock panel report, see https://ufoscoop.com/physical-evidence-related-to-ufos/.

    The relatively recent (in 2004 and 2015) sightings and radar trackings of small UFOs shadowing US Navy carrier battle groups, featuring multiple pilot and ship radar reports and HUD video display recordings amount to some of the best data. Some of these HUD videos were released by the Defense Department a few months ago.

    This is just a sampling of some of the better older data, really just the tip of the iceberg:

    – The 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting
    Except for the WWII “foo fighters”, this begins the modern era of UFOs. A good analysis is at http://www.martinshough.com/ae…..lysis2.pdf . There do not seem to be any valid optical, geometric, geographical, psychological or other reasons to doubt the major features of Arnold’s sighting as reported and they are internally consistent. The analysis results in a range of 16-20 miles, a minimum length of 70-90 feet, and a speed of 890 to 1200 mph. Arnold described the objects as trimmed-off in the rear thin shiny “saucer-like” discoids reflecting sunlight blindingly like metal at certain angles.
    – The Chiles-Whitted Case – Montgomery, Alabama, United States – July 24, 1948
    – The Nash-Fortenberry Sighting (aircraft encounter with formation of UFOs) – Virginia, United States – July 14, 1952
    – The RB-47 UFO Encounter – Gulf Coast Area, United States – July 17, 1957
    – Socorro / Zamora UFO Incident – Socorro, New Mexico, United States – April 24, 1964
    – Coyne Helicopter Incident – Mansfield, Ohio, United States – October 18, 1973
    – “Dogfight over Tehran”, the 1976 Iranian Air Force Incident, a multiple pilot/ground/radar/visual/EMI signal case. Details at http://www.nicap.org/760919tehran_dir.htm .
    – The Cash-Landrum Case – Huffman, Texas, United States – December 29, 1980
    – Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 Over Alaska – Alaska, United States – November 17, 1986
    – Belgium Triangle UFO Sightings – Belgium – October, 1989
    – Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) – Illinois, United States – January 5, 2000

    There was the 1999 French Cometa committee report, summarized at https://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html . This was an in-depth study of UFOs conducted by a science professional group with close ties to the French military and government, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was done over several years by a group at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by other qualified experts from various fields. They took the extraterrestrial hypothesis very seriously when considering the many excellent French cases.

    For an exhaustive analysis of electromagnetic effects generated by UFOs, see Fifty-Six Aircraft Pilot Sightings Involving E-M Effects – Haines (1992), at http://www.nicap.org/papers/92apsiee.htm .

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    Doubter:

    Just curious, you didn’t list the Rendlesham Forest incident. An oversight or one you don’t think is very compelling?

  23. 23
    doubter says:

    JVL

    I find the Rendlesham Forest case interesting but not quite impressive enough for the list.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    JVL:

    that means you don’t have the evidence?

    Still trying to make this personal. The evidence exists. It won’t go away just because you ignore it.

  25. 25
    EDTA says:

    I tried the links from Doubter above, and most 404’d. Nicap.org worked, but several of those also 404’d. Very similar to when I have asked to see the actual physical evidence myself: a big “404”

    Well, since Doubter has reposted his views, I shall have to repost my points on why the evidence is not enough for most people:

    1. Sightings are still too few and infrequent to convince a critical mass of people. They need to be sufficient that 60% of people can sit out in their back yards and see the darned things reliably.

    2. It is odd (and so needs an explanation) that sightings from a century ago ago resembled the most bleeding edge technology of that day (slow-moving, cigar-shaped objects that resembled dirigibles, or balloons). As we move towards today, the craft continue to be just ahead of us–until science fiction really took hold, and they zoomed ahead of us as far as technological capability. This seems too much of a coincidence to not indicate something.

    3. The US military (or anybody’s military) is not panicked about them to the point of devoting a ridiculous % of their budget to bringing one down or somehow setting traps for them.

    4. This phenomenon has attracted more forged photos than any other thing, except perhaps for ghosts. It even beats the number of faked bone forgeries for Darwin! 😎 That’s concerning as a co-phenomenon, and has seriously damaged the reputation of UFO belief.

    5. Everybody has a cell camera now. Yet the number of claimed sightings and new photos is not going up to match the increase in availability of cameras. And yes, most people carry their phone with them everywhere, and can get it out and ready for a photo in less than 5 seconds. I’ve timed it. See here here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/what-is-behind-the-decline-in-ufo-sightings

    6. Still no ability to go to a museum and actually see the darned things! If they want the public to support study/capture/defense/whatever, then why not just make all the physical evidence truly available? Nobody is going to panic. We panic over the lack of toilet paper, not something fun and exciting like alien visitors! I’d personally put a pot of coffee on the stove for them. The public would gladly write to their congresspersons and insist on a budget to get going on figuring out what/who they are, and so on. You can’t convince people with conspiracy-type thinking and arguing—even if the claim is actually true. Bring out the dang evidence already!

    https://www.universetoday.com/133792/ufo-visualizations-show-trends-alien-spotting-saucers-lights/

  26. 26
    ET says:

    1. Sightings are from very credible sources. The Pentagon just released some recent footage from US Navy pilots. The Chilean Air Force also has some great footage. Commercial pilots, police officers, sailors and astronauts have all witnessed UFOs. Many countries have released their files on UFOs.

    2. Christopher Columbus reported on UFOs. I am unaware of any human airships at that time.

    3. Flies don’t poke spiders for no reason

    4. It’s called disinformation

    5. As I said above, everyone’s face is buried in their cellphones. And even then the video isn’t the greatest given the distance.

    6. Many countries have released their evidence. And the worry is people not focusing on their mundane lives that do nothing but feed the machine of oppression.

  27. 27
    doubter says:

    EDTA @25

    “I tried the links from Doubter above, and most 404’d. Nicap.org worked, but several of those also 404’d. Very similar to when I have asked to see the actual physical evidence myself: a big “404””

    Not so fast. The links that now need to be changed:

    Sturrock panel report on UFO physical evidence – https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/12/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf

    1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting – https://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/Arnold%20analysis2.pdf (takes a while to download)

    The rest of of my links still work on my PC.

  28. 28
    EDTA says:

    Sturrock link looks interesting; I will give it a read. Thanks.

Leave a Reply