The Roswell Incident Was A Government Coverup

Let me remind you this debate is not about whether the Roswell Incident was real, it is whether it was a government coverup. The Incident may have been "media hype" but the government NONE THE LESS tried to cover it up! I will explain this in my next point. It would seem logical to conclude that an intelligence matter classified two secrecy levels higher than the Hydrogen-bomb is unlikely to be revealed except to those with the very highest security clearances. Yes, this incident was classified TWO SECRECY LEVELS HIGHER than the H-bomb. Why would balloons falling from the sky be so important? I don't know. If it was ACTUALLY project mogul, then why did the government place such restrictions on it. Now I would like so give my opponent something to think about (not exactly related to the debate, but still gives reason why the government would want to cover up) One of the most fascinating questions that occurs when contemplating the universe is whether there other life exists, equally or more intelligent than we. Are there alien eyes looking at our star or our galaxy and do these creatures ask the same cosmological questions we ask? Nobody knows, although the straightforward application of the Copernican Principle suggests that we cannot be unique in the universe. Is there other life in the universe? How can we begin to answer that question, in the absence of direct evidence to answer the question in the affirmative? One way is through something known as the Drake equation, named after the astronomer Frank Drake. It is not really an equation to be solved, so much as it is a way of systematizing the unknowns. Here is how it works. Let us say we wish to estimate the quantity N, the number of technological civilizations in the galaxy. Of the n stars in the galaxy, only some fraction fp of them will have planets. Only some average number of planets per star, (H), will be potentially habitable. Of the habitable planets, there is a fraction fl that will develop life. Now of the planets that develop life, how many will develop intelligent life? Use fi for that fraction. Only some fraction of intelligent species ft will develop technology. So given all these things, we can write N = n ï¿½ fp ï¿½ H ï¿½ fl ï¿½ fi ï¿½ ft Some of these factors are easier to estimate than others. There are about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way so we will use that for n. There now seems to be some direct evidence for planets around other stars, but as yet we still don't know what fraction of stars would have planets. If we are optimistic, then we would take a fraction near one, essentially saying that all stars have planets. What number of planets per star would be habitable? The planets would have to be located at a distance from their star that is neither too hot nor too cold. In our solar system there are three that are potentially habitable, Venus, Mars, and the Earth. Some stars would support fewer, or possibly no, habitable planets. Let's say that, on average, only one in 10 stars with planets has one planet that could support life. What have we got so far? N = 100,000,000,000 ï¿½ 1 ï¿½ 0.1 ï¿½ fl ï¿½ fi ï¿½ ft This still leaves a lot of potentially life-bearing planets! The next three fractions are the especially tricky ones. If life can develop, does it? Opinions differ widely on this topic. This is where the recent Life on Mars issue has some application. If this development holds up, then life developed on both Mars and the Earth and it becomes much more problematic to say that life is incredibly difficult to get started on any given planet. If you believe life is inevitable, given habitable conditions, then make fl =1. Now, if life forms, does it become intelligent? A difficult question. Life has been around on Earth for billions of years and we (modern humans) came on the scene only in the last 100,000 or so years. And any life on Mars that may have once existed (if it did) died out completely. For purposes of an estimate, let's take the ratio of 100,000 years of humans to 1 billion years of life, giving us 1 in 10,000 planets with life that develop intelligence. Does intelligent life inevitably develop technology? Good arguments can be made either way. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly inevitable about humanity's rise to technological prowess. Although it happened rapidly once it got going, did it have to happen? Could an intelligent creature stay as a hunter/gatherer or simple tool-user for the entire length of its existence? Who knows? Let's adopt the attitude that intelligence necessarily leads to technology and say that ft = 1. So we have N = 100,000,000,000 ï¿½ 1 ï¿½ 0.1 ï¿½ 1 ï¿½ 0.0001 ï¿½ 1 = 1,000,000 One million planets with technologies! C'est pourquoi l'incident de Roswell ï¿½tait une opï¿½ration de camouflage du gouvernement. Fermer votre discours par une phrase en franï¿½ais