In article <1139826915.389757.192360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
ianparker2@gmail.com says...

That is NOT my argument. I am NOT saying that alien life cannot or does
not exist. My argument is that UFO reports are very much geared to the
state of technological understyansing of the people who make them. The
aruments are these.

1) No one is going to attempt an interstellar journey without
Artificial Intelligence. The ability to repair a craft that is damaged
by dust/malfunction etc. will be vital. An unmanned expedition is
likely to proceed a manned one. This being the case exploration will be
by AI. Any humanoids getting out of a spacecraft MUST be wrong. Only
possibility - Androids going to a hacking convention.

I don't think it is a given, that AI is necessary, unless you are
going to make other such statements too?
That computers are necessary - and any number of other projections,
other than the obvious - a craft capable of travelling great distances,
substainable with their own atmosphere and other requirements for the
occupants to live.

2) Atmospheric craft will be extremely reliable. No crashes.

I don't think this is a given. ie. No crashes.
The more complicated a technology is, the more likely that it can
go wrong, unless you say that Murphy's Law only applies to earthmen and
women.

3) Best place the Web. President Houston as I said before will simply
let them in.

If FTL (Faster Than Light) is not possible, and I believe it isn't,
then we can make the assumption that even in a billion years no one
will do it. They could travel at 0.9c possibly even 0.99 if you really
stretch a point but no more. With FTL you do not absolutely need AI,
although you do with a vengeance for anything slower. On FTL

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/83c

b28043cc5b2e8/1caa29f1be4ba16c?lnk=st&q=group%3Asci.physics.rel

gives the basic arguments. A better theoretical physicist would
probably have presented them differently but the bare bones is there.

If their AI is beyond what we can imagine then this reinforces rather
than contradicts my arguments.

The common basic arguments for disbelief in UFOs, has generally been ---

1. Faster than light travel is impossible, therefore they don't exist.
   Never mind the possibility of hyperspace and hyperjumping.

   They don't say - Oh, because UFOs are here and observed, therefore
   we are inadequate with our knowledge, therefore there is some way
   to traverse the great distances with some method of travel.

2. UFOs don't exist - especially ETs, because if they were intelligent
   enough they would have landed on the White House lawn by now.
   Never mind that Washington was indeed buzzed by UFOs sometime in the
   50s'. They probably didn't land because they saw no intelligence
   in the White House. ie. the US Government is no world government,
   nor is it peaceful and understanding with it's dealings with the
   governments of the world.

3. If UFOs were real, then our scientists would have observed them by
   now, especially our astronomers who keep regular watch on the night
   sky. The same could be said for amateur astronomers, some who photograph
   the night sky regularly.
   The reason why, would be the same for pilots and other such people
   (who observe the sky regularly) why they don't make UFO reportings?
   The obvious answer would be - they'll hesitate making any public
   announcements because they'll look foolish making such a statement,
   especially because it could drastically harm their career and future
   advancements.
   I am only spectulating here, but I think it's valid.
   (This is mirrored in the scientific archaeology community when someone
    finds something that doesn't fit in with current dating and expectations
    of dating that particular object. That loss of career can result, when
    they find something of no precedent. See the video/program "Forbidden
    Archaeology" - which is also a book?).

Everyone generally thinks, ie. reasons that - if UFOs were valid,
they would be a respectable field of research by now, instead of
remaining as Page 3 fodder for tabloid magazines and the like.
The subject of Hollywood movies but not that for serious scientific
research and study.

Of course we are dealing with a subject that has enormous implications
for mankind, that no doubt upsets a lot of religious views and beliefs.
That it is best for the public to not speculate upon this, because it is
too controversial to deal with.

But we must deal with this subject - because it is in our best interests
to do so, and all of it's implications and ramifications.
To grow up as a modern unified society, we must deal with it.
That no secrets about them (the UFOs) should be kept secret.

Harvey