Inexplacata

I wasn't disputing either the probability or unlikelihood of Drake's equation, I simply made the observation that it was an exercise in speculation rather than being intended as a profound statement. On such a basis then I clearly had no interest in either proving or disproving it otherwise I would have expanded upon it, right? As for 'What are we considering?', I suspect that the rest of the sentence answers that particular question. In relation to the rest of your pseudo-existentialist axe, I really can't be asked to waste the required time quite frankly, so on you go and enjoy the parting shot. The archaeologist

Good point.. and indeed you can of course sustain a belief that might later transpire to become established fact.

No...it's the 'Let's make a basic effort to spell things correctly' forum...in which case you would appear to be in the wrong place

No Web1, I have no wish or desire to be aggressive with either you, or anyone...bullish at times perhaps, but only then to provoke a cut to the chase rather than endure continued mincing around the edges of an issue. The problem for me in relation to your reply is that your faith in the- shall we say- ETH (Extra-terrestrial hypothesis) is that you have unwittingly contradicted yourself by stating that you are an open minded believer, when the fact is that you can be either one or the other, but not both. The sad fact is that after nearly seventy years of progressive investigative research relating to the UFO phenomenon, not one solitary scrap of hard evidence has emerged to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that alien life forms have visited this planet. Yes, there are countless thousands of cases from around the world to suggest otherwise, but this 'evidence' is sadly all little more than (at best) circumstantial...not absolute fact. Upon such a basis it remains very easy to negate any argument in favour of aliens having come to Earth...all we need ask is 'Where is your proof?' Without solid proof we are maintaining nothing more than a belief system, and one that is, quite frankly, no different to any of the countless other belief systems -religious or otherwise- that we humans have subscribed to as far back into Pre-history as the Mesolithic (middle stone age) period. Having written all of this you'll no doubt -and understandably perhaps-perceive me to be a skeptic web1...and you'd be absolutely right, I am. But before you consider a possible reply I'll ask you to first look up the exact meaning of the word skeptic, and then assimilate what I have written here. You strike me as something of a gentle soul web1, and I'm happy to walk and talk with you about the subject. The archaeologist

Hi Web1, I've already -and regrettably-upset one poster to this site with my (genuinely non-aggressive) comments, so in view of this unfortunate situation I will simply say that I acknowledge your belief, and your choice to walk a path that clearly works for you on a personal level. Respect, The archaeologist

So far as I-and many others it would seem-understand things, Drake's equation was basically no more than an idle piece of speculative fun as opposed to being intended as a profound theory. In relation to your comments concerning this humble ball of rock we call Earth and the gob-smacking diversity of unique life resident upon it, you are bang on. Irrespective of what other life forms might exist beyond the boundary of our planet, what both lived and still lives both upon and beneath the surface of this world have been the direct result of their abilities to adapt to the existing environment(s) of the time and as a consequence have made this rich pageantry of flora and fauna unique to our world at any given point during its inhabited history. If we consider this as a reasonably acceptable argument then we can of course extend the same conditions and circumstances to any other inhabited planet within the known -or indeed still unknown- universe and suggest with equally reasonable conviction that life on any other planet (be that life microscopic, sentient or even hyper-intelligent) will, under the same circumstances, be totally unique. So, if life on Earth is to be considered insignificant -as one or two on this forum have intimated-then by the same token every other potential life form within the universe must also be deemed as insignificant. The archaeologist

Sorry rock muncher...I lost the thread of the quick time reply thing. I'm not a technically proficient type, but happy to pick the thread up and try -being the optimum word here-again from where your last challenge ended

You are quoting from?

(Sorry, finger error) I ask because I have already (and regrettably) upset one contributor to this site despite my inclusion of a smiley face at at end of each reply?

How do you want this potential exchange rock muncher, on a enjoyably thrusting but non- combative level...or going for the jugular. I ask because despite

And if you are a genuine rock muncher my friend, then I am seriously impressed with your professional status (Sweet Jesus I sooooo love geology) and as such offer you my deepest respect...irrespective of your curiously half -cocked reply. Explain to me exactly what you thought I was/am suggesting and we'll take it from there.

Oh ferchrissakes...Drake's equation, the fabled 'wet Sunday afternoon' hypothesis. Try again rock muncher

Bye bye, lightweight.

Actually Lolli_pop, if you read some of the admissions of those involved in the Apollo project then to all intent and purpose the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) shouldn't, in theory, have worked on any level let alone concerning its ability to stop radiation from reaching the two astronauts contained within (or indeed managing to land on the moon!) By their own admission some of the astronauts concerned have openly admitted that they could have poked a finger straight through the walls of the LEM with a minimum of effort, which in turn would imply that their lives were in mortal danger from radiation as well as every other danger inherent with space travel as we knew it back then. Yet they (the astronauts) all returned to earth and many of them continue to live on, so exactly how much of the proposed dangers from radiation (as well as micro-meteorites etc) were based upon known facts as opposed to theory or supposition. One also has to ask how come a craft made of such apparently fragile material managed to survive a hostile environment that Titanium ,apparently, couldn't? I don't know about you Lolli_pop, but I personally look forward to a convincing argument (with links) by way of reply from mistyblue. The archaeologist

I don't actually care what shape the Titanium might take, blades or otherwise quite frankly. I'm questioning your source of data concerning the effects of radiation upon said material, and why it allegedly can't withstand it during space travel. Would you therefore care to provide me with any relevant links to your source of information? In relation to Earth, please don't even try giving me a lame text book reply based upon what is little more than a generic notion for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to actually think for themselves. Bottom line mistyblue (and in a non-aggressive way) ... either put up something distinctly constructive from your own mind, or shut up. The archaeologist