Comments for After Contact

Comment on We are not living inside a simulation – we are building one by K. Erickson

K. Erickson — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:10:06 +0000

The discrepancy may have to do with Kurzweil’s optimism, or it may reflect differences in what we mean by ‘computer power equivalent to a human brain’.

BEST payday loans

Either way, sometime in the 2030s, we anticipate consumer-grade computers with human-level computational capacity.

Comment on We are not living inside a simulation – we are building one by Gregory A

Gregory A — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:03:36 +0000

2029 estimate is incorrect, I have calculated that 10 petaflops mark per $1000 will be achieved in 2035 not 2029, as the author suggests.

Comment on List of Alleged UFO Crashes since 1800 by celshader

celshader — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:34:38 +0000

Interesting how they become less frequent from 1990 onwards as the internet takes hold and the debunking of urban legends become easier.

Comment on List of Alleged UFO Crashes since 1800 by Quiet Professional

Quiet Professional — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:59:32 +0000

Obviously, ETs can’t fly straight.

Comment on List of Alleged UFO Crashes since 1800 by K. Erickson

K. Erickson — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:53 +0000

If that were true, then where is the body?

Comment on List of Alleged UFO Crashes since 1800 by Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:52:19 +0000

I have read somewhere, that the ufo crash in mandurah in 1930 obtained a ET which was shot by a terrorified farmer.

Comment on My Five Favorite Solutions to Fermi’s Paradox by David Heizer

David Heizer — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:57:15 +0000

So, basically, this would functionally be a variant of the old, “they all destroy themselves in a nuclear holocaust” argument, except in this case it’s, “they all transcend out of the observable Universe not long after they develop radio.”

Comment on List of Alleged UFO Crashes since 1800 by mike

mike — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:29:55 +0000

that’s a lot !

Comment on Review of A.D. After Disclosure by K. Erickson

K. Erickson — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:12:19 +0000

Hi Bryce,

Thanks for taking the time to visit and comment!

I get the feeling that we are both interested in the same thing (the issue of ET contact) but that we are coming at it from two completely different paradigms. I see it as an issue that can be answered within the next few decades by science and astronomy. Obviously you guys are coming at it using the language of UFOs. In the book, I appreciated the ideas but I was put off by the UFO language.

I guess I have two main questions for yourself and Richard, if you’ve got time to engage:

First, was there any point, sifting through the vast amount of UFO accounts, where you guys drew the line and said “we’re not going to believe that story”? That’s stretching credulity too far? Relying on what others say is a common practice in UFO research but not as much in science/astronomy. The worry is that there is always someone on the Internet who will support pretty much any claim (somewhere out there we can find people who believe the Earth is hollow!)

Second, what is the basis for discounting and in some cases rubbishing scientific inquiry like SETI? As far as I can tell the SETI people are mainly on your side. NASA’s Kepler telescope is actually able to detect Earth sized planets many hundreds of light-years away, how cool is that?! The James Webb telescope might be able to spectroscopically image those planets and answer definitively whether the signatures of life exist elsewhere. At one point in the book you guys list off all of the many technological achievements of humanity in the last 100 years (brought to us by science) but then with the same brush you paint NASA as inefficient bumblers or sinister conspirators.

What if we discovered evidence of ET life by a means other than UFOs, let’s say a SETI radio signal? What would become the status of science then?

Comment on Review of A.D. After Disclosure by Bryce Zabel

Bryce Zabel — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:38:12 +0000

Hey, Kris… thanks for a thorough job here. I don’t agree with everything you say, obviously, in that I think in some places you’ve accused us of believing everything when the book is attempting to set the table, if you will, by telling us what others say, etc. And our forward projections are all meant to inspire debate (such as yours and your excellent site) not to cut it off. I just think that there is a whole lot more meat on the bones here than you give us credit for. But I thank you for reading it and caring enough to give it a review! Bryce