"The Cosmic Hoax: An Exposé" by Steven Greer

[Laird]

On the theme of ETs as "traders", I wonder whether - if true - you guys would see this as tending to imply that (those) ETs are based in our physical reality, rather than being from some sort of extra-physical reality. I suggest his because the trading, presumably, would be in physical objects, which would not have much if any meaning for an ET whose origin was extra-physical. Potentially, such ETs could anyway even manifest whatever physical objects they cared to given that they are already able to manifest themselves in this physical reality.

Oh, and Mike, I think the "ETs" on Mars to which Typoz referred were us humans, who are currently exploring - by proxy - that planet, and who in that scenario are "alien" to Mars - but hopefully Typoz will correct me if I'm wrong.

On the theme of ETs as "traders", I wonder whether - if true - you guys would see this as tending to imply that (those) ETs are based in our physical reality, rather than being from some sort of extra-physical reality. I suggest his because the trading, presumably, would be in physical objects, which would not have much if any meaning for an ET whose origin was extra-physical. Potentially, such ETs could anyway even manifest whatever physical objects they cared to given that they are already able to manifest themselves in this physical reality.

Oh, and Mike, I think the "ETs" on Mars to which Typoz referred were us humans, who are currently exploring - by proxy - that planet, and who in that scenario are "alien" to Mars - but hopefully Typoz will correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding Mars, when I said drilling holes, firing lasers etc that was a direct reference to the robotic vehicles despatched there from Earth. Because of the time taken for signals to travel between Earth and Mars, the robots are largely independent, autonomous, not controlled by any human. And being machines they have no comprehension of emotion. At a stretch of the imagination, some hypothetical life-form on Mars could find itself being drilled or zapped without a care from the machine. Though that part is I think at flight of fancy. The intent of my post though was serious, to wonder about robotic visitors to Earth.

[Laird]

the robots are largely independent, autonomous, not controlled by any human. And being machines they have no comprehension of emotion.

Could it be seen, then, that you are suggesting that the "ETs" that we experience on Earth (saucers; tic-tacs; etc) are, equally, "largely independent, autonomous, not controlled by any [conscious ET intelligence]"? Or is that drawing too long a bow?

Could it be seen, then, that you are suggesting that the "ETs" that we experience on Earth (saucers; tic-tacs; etc) are, equally, "largely independent, autonomous, not controlled by any [conscious ET intelligence]"? Or is that drawing too long a bow?

I was only thinking the idea should not be ruled out. I don't think there's a single explanation, but if we use the word 'robot' it need not be made of the materials we use, it might be different both visually and internally to expectations.

I was only thinking the idea should not be ruled out. I don't think there's a single explanation, but if we use the word 'robot' it need not be made of the materials we use, it might be different both visually and internally to expectations.

I suppose that what on the surface appear most likely to be ETIs in manufactured spaceships thousands to millions of years ahead of us technologically, could instead be "AETIs" (artificial extraterrestrial intelligences). I don't know if such a hypothesis would have any advantages over the plain ETI concept, however. The same main objections would still apply, including that the laws of physics preclude their getting here at all in any manageable period of time, and that the observed maneuvering and speed capabilities, lack of sonic booms, etc. are contrary to the laws of physics for any vehicle with significant mass and would seem to only be possible for optical effects. The "AETI" hypothesis would have the additional problem of having to overcome all the objections to the possibility of conscious intelligent AIs, if any of the close encounter cases are to be taken seriously (which I think they should be).

I suppose that what on the surface appear most likely to be ETIs in manufactured spaceships thousands to millions of years ahead of us technologically, could instead be "AETIs" (artificial extraterrestrial intelligences). I don't know if such a hypothesis would have any advantages over the plain ETI concept, however.

I wasn't suggesting this was the explanation, just that there are many possibilities, and all of them may be correct. As for advantages, initially the thought came from the "lack of fear" concept. But by extension from human explorations of our locality, the missions which have travelled the furthest from Earth and with the greatest longevity are unmanned. But I don't think physical objects comprise the entirety, at least not as we understand physicality.

Regarding Mars, when I said drilling holes, firing lasers etc that was a direct reference to the robotic vehicles despatched there from Earth. Because of the time taken for signals to travel between Earth and Mars, the robots are largely independent, autonomous, not controlled by any human. And being machines they have no comprehension of emotion. At a stretch of the imagination, some hypothetical life-form on Mars could find itself being drilled or zapped without a care from the machine. Though that part is I think at flight of fancy. The intent of my post though was serious, to wonder about robotic visitors to Earth.

Okay. I misunderstood. I hear a lot of claims about Mars and ET and have not engaged with them.

So yes, your point is well made. There have been claims that the 'Greys' are robotic, but that is speculative rather than based on any evidence. It's not something that can be dismissed off hand. Was it the 2nd Star Wars movie that had remote probes driving at the rebel base? There are a lot of reason for thinking a high tech culture would use robots - and if we image advances in AI there could be a plausible capacity to interact with humans.

A possible downside to that idea is that communication with humans has tended to be 'telepathic' - but who's to say that would be impossible in highly advanced robots. Another prospect might harnessing quantum entanglement to create a quasi robotic form that is controlled from a vast difference - active rather than programmed - or maybe a mixture of both.

So there could be multiple reasons why ET does not get human fear - and we could entertain ourselves speculating what that might be - something I think is a fruitful exercise because it obliges us to imagine more deeply.

I have attached the fragment from my diary that includes the reference to traders.

I suppose that what on the surface appear most likely to be ETIs in manufactured spaceships thousands to millions of years ahead of us technologically, could instead be "AETIs" (artificial extraterrestrial intelligences). I don't know if such a hypothesis would have any advantages over the plain ETI concept, however. The same main objections would still apply, including that the laws of physics preclude their getting here at all in any manageable period of time, and that the observed maneuvering and speed capabilities, lack of sonic booms, etc. are contrary to the laws of physics for any vehicle with significant mass and would seem to only be possible for optical effects. The "AETI" hypothesis would have the additional problem of having to overcome all the objections to the possibility of conscious intelligent AIs, if any of the close encounter cases are to be taken seriously (which I think they should be).

I think we need to be careful about invoking limits imposed by the 'laws of physics' because they seem to change. For example we have progressed from the still valid Newtonian notions to Quantum science [after a century of dogged resistence]. Who knows what might the case in a century from now. 

I agree that there are problems re conscious intelligence in the realm of AI - such as we presently understand AI. But we might be able to imagine a combination of operational AI and projected consciousness. For example we have the tech to use 'robotic' devices to carry cameras and audio through remote control into dangerous situations. We have the capacity to see and speak remotely. Advanced tech using quantum entanglement could create the same capacity over vast distances.

We can't rule out possibilities because we can't project what advanced tech is capable of. Let's say ET is only a 1,000 years ahead of us. When you look at how tech has evolved over the past 150 years it is impossible to project even 200 years ahead. I know how tech has evolved in my lifetime - and that is just stunning. How might things be even 50 years hence? I won't be around the physical world then [at least I hope not], but I try to imagine my iPhone 12 being considered ridiculously old tech the way I recall 1970s tech - and I am defeated. I have no idea what will be around then.

The same main objections would still apply, including that the laws of physics preclude their getting here at all in any manageable period of time, and that the observed maneuvering and speed capabilities, lack of sonic booms, etc. are contrary to the laws of physics for any vehicle with significant mass

What about Hologram type things or psychic things? Maybe ET is sometimes able to make people see things while others can’t by ‘hypnotising’ them. The possibilities are many.

What about Hologram type things or psychic things? Maybe ET is sometimes able to make people see things while others can’t by ‘hypnotising’ them. The possibilities are many.

I think we can speculate about things like holograms and 'psychic things' endlessly. If our intent is to understand ET I am not sure that will help a great deal without evidence that gets down to the specifics - and that is one area where ET either is coy or we just don't get it yet.

I can tell you the 'psychic things' are damned real, having been through a bunch of them.

But I think the bigger question is what they are on about. They are not invading us. They seem to be trying to get us to wake up to our unfortunate and unhealthy preoccupation with doing and making toxic and dangerous things. That is a consistent and persistent theme. 

Watch the 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. Its worth the rental fee - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GnRsbk9CU

Back in 1951 this movie pretty much set the scene in terms of themes from ET. Ignore the 2008 remake. I watched it for research and did not enjoy it. It missed the point of the original.

As a long time sci fi buff I am into speculation and dissecting claims. It's fun. But its not always useful. For me what we call ET constitutes an existential confrontation when we consider motive and purpose. It can be appealing to duck that in favour of distractions - which is what I think Greer does - that make us feel good.

To me this is a bit like engaging in theology instead of confronting the essence of the spiritual message. By focusing on the rational we can numb the existential and keep it under control. For me ET's message is 'quit screwing around.' That's what I am trying to do - and it isn't easy.