Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Nov -> Re: The Drake Equation

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 21:41:29 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:35:57 -0500
Subject: Re: The Drake Equation


 >From: Eduardo Gomez <neutrox7@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:36:02 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:43:21 -0500

 >Subject: The Drake Equation

 >When considering probability of life in another planets, the
 >Drake Equation is a good starting point, but there's one element
 >not included in it, which is the possibility that advanced
 >civilizations (let's say, only 500 years more advanced than us)
 >could be capable of colonizing many inhabited planets and moons
 >in other star systems. In time, that could easily triple any
 >previous figures resulting from applying the Drake Equation.
 >It seems that humans have already mastered space warping and
 >similar means of travel (thanks to the reverse engineering of
 >"borrowed" alien crafts), so maybe just another century will be
 >enough for us to "officially" travel to other systems or whoknows how far.
 >Yeah, I know, someone will say: How can you be sure that we
 >already have built such craft, etc.? I cannot, and probably
 >never will. Gravity control means supremacy, so it'll be top
 >secret for many years, and it'll be protected by any means
 >necessary. Nuclear power had the same treatment for decades, but
 >this is even bigger, just from the point of view of militarypower.
 >Add to that the challenge that the existence of ETs bring to the
 >(obsolete?) socio-political and religious structure of our
 >planet, and the magnitude of the problem is self-evident.

 >EDUARDO GOMEZ



Eduardo & List:

May be  it's also important to recall that _traces of water_ --
for the first time in history -- was found quite recently on an
E.T. object, i.e., on a meteorite (as mentioned on this List
during summer/autumn; sorry, I don't know when).

This trace of water should contribute to an increased belief in,
and increased probability for, life-forms on other planets in
the universe.

For those calculating the probable no. of intelligent life-forms
on other planets using the Drake equation, it is now important
to modify a relevant Drake factor in the eq., which should
include the information on this new discovery.

Further, according to Sagan (Scientific American; Oct. 1994),
human beings, as every other organism on Earth, are based on
liquid water and organic molecules. A modest search strategy --
looking for necessary if not sufficient criteria -- might then
begin by looking for liquid water and organic molecules. No
other chemical element comes close to carbon in the variety and
intricacy of the compounds it can form; liquid water provides a
superb, stable medium in which organic molecules can dissolve
and interact, and organic molecules are surprisingly common in
the universe. For the moment, carbon- and water-based life-forms
are the only kinds we know or can even imagine.

Thus, both traces of E.T. _water and organic molecules_ are now
found!

Maybe we should now revise our probability of being alone in the
universe, and _increase_ this probability by some amount?

Best Regards,
Asgeir