UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life

But does it?

The octopus has multiple brains... a central brain and then other brains that control each tentacle.

Equally with the eyes... we are hunters so we have eyes at the front of our heads so the distance to targets can be estimated by our binocular vision, but then spiders are also hunters, but also prey from other creatures so they have eyes at the front for hunting but also eyes all around their heads which are also practically their upper bodies that detect movement and threats 360 degrees.

Having a head that can turn around so the limited field of view could be compensated but turning ones head and increasing its vision could just as easily have been eyes in our chests and backs.

Our brains are in our heads because our primary senses like sight and hearing and taste and smell are also there so putting the brain there means faster processing of information.

our eyes gather a very detailed view of the world which is slow to process... by the time we have seen the fly and calculated its distance... it takes time... when we swing our hand to crush the fly, the fly flys away before we see it move because our vision updates so slowly... the fly on the other hand has multiple light sensors in its eye but only sees the most basic of things... it sees you hand coming and processes that information so fast it has plenty of time to get airborne and fly away to avoid the attack.

But... the human brain has intelligence, so after it misses the fly a few times it realises the fly is somehow too fast, so instead of slapping down on the surface the fly is on to try to kill it... the smart human anticipates the fly will take off and climb to 10-15 cms above where it currently is when it detects their moving hand.

It is like shooting a rabbit on the run... shoot where it is now and you miss... aim where it is likely to be and you get it most of the time.

Instead of slapping down on the fly swing your hand 10-15cm above where the fly currently is and cup your hand to catch it... with a bit of practise you will get the fly most of the time.

Talk about intelligent though... I will often then let the fly escape because I open my hand expecting to have missed the fly and the little bugger then flys away...

Flys and Spiders use fixed eyes to see in most directions, while humans and a lot of other animals use heads to allow greater fields of vision with just two sets of eyes.

Humans could just as easily have had two hunting eyes like the two we have now and perhaps 4 to 6 more basic eyes in the sides and rear of our heads to warn of threats from other directions.

Even with the eyes we have the centre of your vision sees detail... anything outside the centre of your vision you can see basic features like colour and shape but to read something normally you need to centre it in your vision.

You field of view outside that centre of vision is optimised to detect movement which draws you eyes to centre on what is moving so you can identify it properly.

That less focussed area of your eye is also better at seeing at night, which just goes to show we are not night predators.

We have a head, with two eyes in the front like a predator, and a large brain also in our heads, and arms and legs and hands, but to become an advanced life form that is intelligent you don't need the same mixture... depending on the addons tentacles can be as useful as hands sometimes, and having one big brain is not necessarily better than having multiple brains... a big thinking brain with small brains for basic motor control... imagine an 8 armed creature evolved from an octopus with 9 brains... one main brain and then one brain for each arm... but at the end of the arm were mini tentacles like fingers... the big brain coordinated everything and there were say 6 big eyes on the head... stereo vision each covering 120 degrees, plus a single basic movement detection eye above each hand so each hand could act independently with its own brain and eye to control it.

In a way it would almost be working like a collective with a shared mouth and stomach that each of the arms could move food into, with the main head and brain directing the entire creature to shelter or food or away from predators when needed.

It could learn to use tools and make itself protective clothing or armour from the shells of its food and seaweed... etc etc.

Equally insects could certainly evolve and develop... many of our advanced composite materials were designed and made by spiders and also various insects...

How long before humans evolve or just start adding mechanical parts to ourselves... an extra set of arms, or legs to help us move faster or further or carry more weight, or improved vision or hearing, the options are enormous.

Even right now you could make a helmet that has cameras all around it including night vision cameras, with large LCD displays in front of your eyes showing what is behind you or in front of you 24/7... and also connecting you to the internet or cellphone... telling you the weather and temperature, or the racing results...

nomadski wrote:
As regards shape of any EBE . I think that they would be subject to similar rules of development on their planet.

Of course and the outcome would probably be the same, specially since earthlike conditions appear to be a prerequisite for life.

They need to be upright, to find food and again avoid predators.

They need to be erect to free the hands for work.

They need to make tools. And need hands. So no birds or fish........ So you get something that has to look like us.

I incline toward that view.
There have been many examples of homoplasy in our world so it wouldn't be surprising if life on a distant but earthlike world gave rise to basically the same thing.

They do say that God made man in his image. Hawking, in his book, a brief history of time, did say that the mathematical value of an atomic property, was so accurately fixed, that it could not have happened by accident. And that, if this value was even slightly different, that our universe, together with possibility of life, would not exist.

Yeah, they have worked out that there needed to be a lot of things go a particular way for us to exist, which to some people means there must be a guiding hand to make it happen... the earth has been here 4.5 billion years and this universe is at least 13 billion years old... life on our planet is really trial and error... if it was creation it would not have taken so long.

Yes... what we see now is the result of a series of unusual events and environments, but perhaps that is also the reason the universe does not seem to be teeming with life on every rock and planet.

It was very lucky for us to be here but think of all the people who aren't here... either dead or never been born... all the millions of different species that became extinct because they weren't right or just bad luck. Their might have been a mutation where a human had super intellect and ended up killing themselves because everyone else around them was so stupid... or they were building something ahead of their time and were killed making it.

There might be 10,000 other planets in this galaxy where creatures are thinking the same things we are, or they might be thinking something totally different.

One has to be careful with the super fine tuning BS that is spewed by the physics community. It mostly originates in the
particle physics and cosmology branches where they refuse to consider the possibility that their theories are wrong. These
fields have a lot of unscientific characteristics and resemble cults. This is not surprising since these branches of physics
have poor levels of observational constraint and almost anything goes in terms of theory.

Aside from the obvious fact that maybe we have life because we happen to be in a certain parameter regime and that says nothing
about the existence of any God or gods, the super fine tuning can be an artifact of broken theories. Take the cosmological constant
problem. Supposedly it is 10^120 times too large compared to what the structure of the universe tells us, if you believe in zero point energy.
To resolve this conundrum would require simply magical renormalization of existing field theories, i.e. simply absurd levels of fine tuning
would be required. The wrinkle is that zero point energy is a crock of nonsense resulting from treating time as a classical deterministic
parameter in the quantum mechanics advanced about 100 years ago. Recent work has finally addressed this BS and a proper theoretical
approach has been adopted:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321314001400

It is rather shocking that it has taken a century to do it right. One of the reasons for this is the loopy Copenhagen philosophy interpretation
of quantum mechanics (QM). Where magical observers collapse wave functions and other nonsense. In the real world there is no external
observer collapsing a wave function. There is only quantum entanglement and no observer is every fully independent of an observed or
even non observed system. Reality is quantum entangled. The fallout of a proper treatment of time as a fully quantized field is that
the zero point energy disappears and so does the cosmological constant problem. How many other such problems and absurd fine tuning
are due to physics fundamentals being treated in the wrong way? Another excellent result from doing time right in QM is that you get
rid of the dark energy contrivance in cosmology. But perhaps the best part of this new approach is that it opens up the door for getting
a quantum theory of gravity which still eludes the scientific community to this day (string theory has pretty much failed). It does appear
that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is more fundamental than the Schroedinger equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation

We do live in interesting times in terms of theoretical innovation. But the adoption of this innovation is suppressed by old guard reactionaries
who have invested their lives into peddling broken theories. Just read any popular science coverage of particle physics and cosmology.
You would think that the existing theories in these fields are unquestionable when in fact, they are speculative voodoo.

nomadski wrote:They do say that God  made man  in his image.

Invoking a god who says "presto" is just an admission of ignorance, a stopgap pending real or rational explanations.

Hawking, in his book, a brief history of time, did say that the mathematical value of an atomic property, was so accurately fixed, that it could not have happened by accident.

No, for many years it has been noted that just like our Earth is habitable by a lucky accident (whereas the overwhelming majority of planets aren't) our Universe could similarly be very lucky to be habitable whereas trillions of others aren't.

And that, if this value was even slightly different, that our universe, together with possibility of life, would not exist.

This claim was also refuted some time ago. See e.g. The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. The author considers the above "multiverse" explanation possible but shows that some variation in the properties of the Universe would not render it uninhabitable. Everything doesn't have to be precisely as it is for life to arise.

nomadski wrote:As to be so unlikely, that it could not be by accident !

Fallacy. It's very unlikely that any given planet will be habitable like ours.

Creationist idea is the product of countless millenia of human observation and reasoning.

No, it's the reaction of diehard ignorance to better explanations.

It provides the best explanation by far, of any scientific theories so far. It is the best scientic theory.

Pro biologists would beg to differ.

It looks like Earth like planets can be common in the universe.

Not relative to total # of planets.

I wonder when we can have the means to observe their Atmospheres for signs of life.

In coming years spectroscopic studies may tell us a lot.

It provides the best explanation by far, of any scientific theories so far. It is the best scientic theory. Lacking a formal quantifiable mathematical format.

No, it provides no explanation at all.

For a long time the sun came up every day because it was the will of the sun god.

Such an explaination would be fine for children because it does not matter whether they really know why or not, and having gods means you can control them by saying god will be mad if you don't do this or that... so it is more about control than useful information.

Imagine going to the moon thinking god is responsible for everything good and everything bad is just a test to see if you are faithful...

If there is a god and they really respond to everyone who asks them to then why piss around with the concept of faith... you would not trust a stranger until they have proven they are trustworthy beyond any doubt.

Why would you trust a god you have never seen and can never see, yet is everywhere and can see all and knows all your secrets and thoughts?

More importantly if fire burns because god makes it burn and water drowns because he makes it drown living things not equipped to live in the sea then everything becomes gods fault... but then supposedly god gave us free will which means any problems that exist on this planet are our fault... but that is critical... if we have free will then it is our fault so why do we need to keep getting favour with this god that put us on this planet with all these loonies with no direct personal guidance... you have to rely on word of mouth from other people who have also been given free will and can lie and cheat and steal if they so choose.

I think the threats of eternal damnation are extreme for not believing other humans who are fallible and also who could be lying for their own ends.

If god is everywhere and all powerful how hard would it be to just appear to each of us and tell us unequivically... I am god, and the closest to the truth is religion xyz which you should follow to have a long and healthy life.

For an all powerful god that is everywhere and knows everything how hard would that be?

The claims that you need faith, are to hide the lack of proof.

Religion is great for tribes to bind the tribe together and the rituals about not interbreeding are sound and sensible, but some of the crap there is just arbitrary and clearly designed to create a power base where someone doesn't have to get the harvest in, or fight in wars or other advantages over their fellow man.

Religion provides morality... which is clearly absent in modern western culture, but what it does not provide is useful stuff like science does.

Something that has to be taken on faith and cannot be tested is worse than useless.

Religion and its shamanic precursor are all about power and control. Thus they are dirty and immoral. History is swimming in the blood
unleashed by religion. The crusades. The extermination of pagans around the world (this includes Russia after the adoption of
Christianity). The burning at the stake of truth tellers (Giordano Bruno) and the historical atrocity known as the inquisition.
The high priests of religion have always been in bed with the kings and tyrants. And they have made grotesque and blasphemous
interpretations of holy books to justify slavery and genocide (for example the teaching that New World aboriginals did not have
souls because they weren't Christians (or more accurately Catholics since Catholics thought Orthodox Christians were not Christians)).

The whole construct of going to sermon on Sundays is about indoctrination. Some clown is spinning his and his bosses' interpretation
of the Bible and telling you how to think. But the holy books themselves are a crock since they are obviously the product of the
era in which the humans who wrote them lived: for Christianity and Islam the holy books are the products of goat herders and reflect
their peculiar understanding of the world. Yet today we are supposed to treat these goat herder screeds like God's word. As noted
by Garry, why does God need ignorant, fallible humans to be his agents? God could easily write any number of holy books composed of
immutable minerals and scatter then in the lithosphere for us to dig up during our mining activity. And God could ensure that we
understood the language of those holy books by encoding it in our DNA. For an omnipotent and omniscient entity, God sure does not
act like one.

And the whole crock about this life being a test to get into the after life is BS as well:

1) it is sadistic. I have seen some Central American bishop spout off that this life is temporal and any suffering is not important
compared to the everlasting afterlife. Sounds like a great ploy to justify the exploitation of the masses by the 1%. The "give
Caesar what is Casar's" BS line is the same. Sorry but Caesar's gold coins are my property after I earn them. So why the f*ck would
they be still his and why would I be obliged to give them back to him.

2) it is inane. The notion of some harp strumming afterlife lasting forever is obvious nonsense. Humans cannot just have good times
and joy. They need pain and misery to balance. There was an interesting fiction piece on US TV from the 1970s where heaven and
hell were cast as the same room. For some the room was Hell, for others it was Heaven.

God and gods are the creation of man. Idealizations and pacifiers. An example of how our intelligence can also make us weak since we
know too much about reality and too little to do something about it and make our lives better. Animals don't need shrines and deities
and that is not a sign of their inferiority.

kvs wrote:
But the holy books themselves are a crock since they are obviously the product of their peculiar understanding of the world.

Certainly the gospels are the work of utter ignoramuses compared to current knowledge. But as Ehrman and others note, they were not written by the original disciples, who were ignorant peasants/fishermen in Palestine. They were written by educated Greek speaking christians in urban areas, decades after christ.

nomadski wrote:
We have only recently become a technological civilization. What are aliens capable of , if they are tens of thousands of years ahead of us.!

Maybe even more--hundreds of thousands, or millions. Or a billion or more, IF some Population II stars have earthlike planets.
UFO reports give a good idea of what they're capable of, which is virtually everything.

Another explanation is that in however thousands or millions of years in the future, humans develop time travel and can come back to observe certain things in strictly controlled situations perhaps... maybe time travel is banned because of the potential damage it could do to their civilisation, but say they need human dna or animal dna from this time period to solve some problem or issue.

These grays might be what humans evolve in to over a long period of time.

It is of course hard to speculate about the future... back in the 1980s if you had told me everyone would have a phone with a camera attached I would have wondered why you would think anyone would be so important as to need a phone with them all the time let alone a camera... only people on holiday carry cameras with them.

I see a school in Russia was thinking of banning cellphones for children in class because they are distracting... the parents protested because they needed to be able to communicate with their children in an "emergency".

When I was at school if my parents needed to tell me something they phoned the school office and passed on a message... but it almost never happened.

Pathetic.

GarryB wrote:Another explanation is that in however thousands or millions of years in the future, humans develop time travel and can come back to observe certain things in strictly controlled situations perhaps...

I don't think time travel is possible because the past doesn't exist anymore.

maybe time travel is banned because of the potential damage it could do to their civilisation, but say they need human dna or animal dna from this time period to solve some problem or issue.

Any system far enough advanced for interstellar travel or time travel could probably solve genetic issues without coming to Earth in recent times. I'm skeptical of most ET claims about their reason for coming here.

These grays might be what humans evolve in to over a long period of time.

I doubt it. Some reported entities are quite humanlike others reptilian or insectoid. I think most aren't naturally evolved but just part of an alien show.

nomadski wrote:
Let's assume that these reports are true. Then how far advanced are they? But first would a caveman recognise what a motorcar is? No. There is no frame of reference. Would someone from victorian England recognise what a car is? Yes. It is a horseless carriage. So if advanced technology is too advanced, then it becomes unrecognisable.

UFOs are unlike any technology we possess--their means of travel is a matter of speculation-- but still definitely appear to be flying craft.

In this cases, their technology is not unrecognisable to us. In fact for many of their abilities, we have theoretical explanations or even practical applications. So they can not be millions of years ahead. Technologically. But perhaps hundreds or thousands of years ahead.

Also, technological advances do not increase exponentially. It is a curve that flattens out. With fewer discoveries and inventions, as time passes. So they could be millions of years ahead historically or socially.

Right as Stent once wrote progress doesn't go on forever but likely stops so another world could be millions of years older but only a few centuries or even decades ahead of us in terms of basic knowledge.

I don't think time travel is possible because the past doesn't exist anymore.

In an old folks home the past is all that matters.

Any system far enough advanced for interstellar travel or time travel could probably solve genetic issues without coming to Earth in recent times. I'm skeptical of most ET claims about their reason for coming here.

I agree, in fact that awful Bruce Willis movie about those aliens that came to earth with that kid who kept leaving glasses of water everywhere... and it turns out the aliens can be killed by water... which makes you wonder why they bothered coming to a planet that is 2/3rds water, to prey on a life form that is 3/4ths water...

Ahh well.

I doubt it. Some reported entities are quite humanlike others reptilian or insectoid. I think most aren't naturally evolved but just part of an alien show.

Well if they can travel across galaxies then perhaps we see what they want us to see... who knows what they might actually look like... like that tiny little alien in MIB that drives the human around like a vehicle.

Right as Stent once wrote progress doesn't go on forever but likely stops so another world could be millions of years older but only a few centuries or even decades ahead of us in terms of basic knowledge.

But look at our own history... tens of thousands of years with different technologies being developed and wars destroying cultures... some technologies might have been destroyed because the culture that they were developed within was destroyed.

It is mind boggling to think that within the life span of one human being when they were born... powered heavier than air flight was invented and before they died man lands on the moon, or goes in to space... that is rapid technological progress, which brings communication and information storage capacity that makes even more rapid progress possible.

Before writing things were handed down by word of mouth, now you can look on the internet and a wealth of information... and bullshit.... is available.

The only way we can explain these events, are that human thoughts travel through time.

But then there are 7 billion people on this planet and probably more than half of them dream most nights... some several different dreams per night that they might not remember. Is it subconscious mind reaching out, or is it just random so when someone dreams of something and it happens that is a coincidence.

I had a neighbour who lost her key at the beach, she had been looking for hours and finally raised her head and spoke to god... she had never been a religious person and said she needed the key and she would become Christian if she could find the key. She said she looked down at the ground and there it was. The question is, if she had said a 7th day adventist, or mormon, or jew, or muslim, or really really drunk... would the key have still been there?

I suggest to you that it would.

One of the most common dreams is the feeling of flying, but when you are asleep there is a part of your brain that automatically disconnects itself from your body, so you think you are walking or running or climbing or jumping, or just floating but your body does not move.

I remember waking suddenly from a particularly vivid dream and I was halfway through kicking a ball... that moment of dread when I felt my leg powerfully follow through with the kick and kick the cabinet beside my bed... my big toe split open and it took about three days for the nail to turn black and fall off... damn brain.

Reptilian humanoids could have evolved on many other planets in different star systems & developed highly advanced civilizations Ks & Ms of years ago; some could've visited our Earth.

I think we really need to keep an open mind... just the variety of life on earth is a tiny sample... add different chemical compositions, different air pressures, different gravity levels, different temperature variations... what we see around us is only a tiny fraction of the different life forms that have evolved and lived on just this planet... with a thicker atmosphere more things could fly for instance.

nomadski wrote:https://www.livescience.com/16214-implications-faster-light-neutrinos.html

I tell you a true story. A mother dreamt that her child had a bruise on her hip. The next day the child crying, could not extend leg. The mother remembering her dream, took child to doctor. The child had to have operation to remove infection from hip joint. Doctor said, if she had not acted quickly, as she did, it could be a bad outcome. The area of operation, coincided exactly with her dream the night before.

From a philosophical point. Thoughts can not be perceptions. But a derivative of perceptions. The derivative thoughts can not be the thoughts themselves. And so on ad infinitum. The human soul is composed of his thoughts. The only way we can explain these events, are that human thoughts travel through time. They do not exist in our domain. So time travel is possible. And I think real and actual. It takes place when two souls are aligned and can view each other. See the other's experience. In this case the mother views her own thoughts in the future.

I don't believe Earth visiting aliens, god or any superstitions - yet I had a dream how I met my wife month before I met her. Details matched from her clothing colour to place we met. I usually don't dream at all or I don't recall my dreams. There were few things similiar that happened, but not on such impactful scale and I probably brush most of them on behalf of probability bias.

Regular wrote:

nomadski wrote:https://www.livescience.com/16214-implications-faster-light-neutrinos.html

I tell you a true story. A mother dreamt that her child had a bruise on her hip. The next day the child crying, could not extend leg. The mother remembering her dream, took child to doctor. The child had to have operation to remove infection from hip joint. Doctor said, if she had not acted quickly, as she did, it could be a bad outcome. The area of operation, coincided exactly with her dream the night before.

From a philosophical point. Thoughts can not be perceptions. But a derivative of perceptions. The derivative thoughts can not be the thoughts themselves. And so on ad infinitum. The human soul is composed of his thoughts. The only way we can explain these events, are that human thoughts travel through time. They do not exist in our domain. So time travel is possible. And I think real and actual. It takes place when two souls are aligned and can view each other. See the other's experience. In this case the mother views her own thoughts in the future.

I don't believe Earth visiting aliens, god or any superstitions - yet I had a dream how I met my wife month before I met her. Details matched from her clothing colour to place we met. I usually don't dream at all or I don't recall my dreams. There were few things similiar that happened, but not on such impactful scale and I probably brush most of them on behalf of probability bias.

Humans don't understand enough about physical reality to fob off such experiences as meaningless. Reality appears to be quantum
mechanical in nature. Look up entangled time on Google or other search engine. Time may be an emergent feature and not fundamental.
Although it is harder to find any discussion on this, the same logic can be applied to space also. So space and time are not there
a priori, they are features we perceive but ultimately reality may have the essence of a quantum point. It is not a point in our
experience since it contains all the information of reality. But it trivially accounts for quantum non-locality including the
"spooky action at a distance" that Einstein resisted so much when it came to entanglement. Quantum entanglement does not need to
travel any distance it is there before any space and time emerge.

My view is that some of the strange dreams and feelings of being watched are not just paranoid brain noise, but are actual physical
interactions that may span time and space and even outside our "dimension". Nothing says that the quantum point universe does
not sustain many emergent space-times. Each one of them being a different "dimension" or reality. And the non-local essence of
quantum mechanics together with entanglement means that vast distance and times domains are all interacting with themselves and
other emergent realities.

But such thinking is heresy for many who prefer something more tame and subjectively acceptable to them. Such people are the ones
that love burning non-conformists at the stake to impose some BS authority.

Sorry to go back off topic, but religion creates order and structure where there was none, but like anything it is vulnerable to abuse and misuse... I see religion as a personal thing you shouldn't talk about unless asked, and you should not try to sway the beliefs of others to match yours... each person needs to make those decisions for themselves.

They say there are no athiests in foxholes or old folks homes, but the person saying that is generally trying to insinuate that fear creates and supports religion, which is probably the worst way to advertise it.

Faith can give hope... and even if it is false hope it can bring comfort... what do you say to your dying 84 year old mother who has already lost her husband and some of her children... I am an athiest... but I still tell her when she goes she will be with lost family and friends... and even old pets... even if it is a total lie it is a nice lie and a lie that makes death easier to accept and live with the knowledge that that is where we are all going.

Anyway... enough about religion... we certanly don't know enough about dreams or the universe or life and death to make any definitive statements about it either way.

GarryB wrote:
Faith can give hope... and even if it is false hope it can bring comfort... what do you say to your dying 84 year old mother who has already lost her husband and some of her children... I am an athiest... but I still tell her when she goes she will be with lost family and friends... and even old pets... even if it is a total lie it is a nice lie and a lie that makes death easier to accept and live with the knowledge that that is where we are all going.

The crux of the problem is that science and technology haven't yet advanced to the point where they can overcome death. Future progress may see current humans with aging genes under control, or a new artificial/android humanity will replace the current one. Secularization has come far even without this; when it comes, the last vestiges of holy bs will be buried.

It is known that cells degrade over time and with every regeneration... no matter how many candles you blow out on your cake for your birthday your bones are not as old as you are... they completely regenerate over a period of about 10 years so at most your bones are 10 years old... that is what they mean by brittle bones from age... as you get older your bodys ability to regenerate degrades... and that is on purpose... we are like Apple Iphones... we have a use by date where we are designed to expire.

Once we learn how to turn that switch off you can remain at the peak of health and fitness for as long as you want... of course eventually you might want to die... after several hundred years you might become alienated from the culture around you, though any friends and family killed in accidents will of course remain dead...

The real question perhaps is... will genetic upgrades make robotic upgrades obsolete or vice versa... will we by synthetic like forms like Data in Star Trek, or will we be brains in a jar like Futurama... perhaps with a robot body to carry us around... why not both?

Have the aliens that come here gone through the same dilemma... if we look at our own space exploration history... sending probes is most likely the first choice because it can be smaller and lighter and faster and you can send it to places where humans might or might not be able to survive...

Imagine a manned space Ark sent to a star 3 light years away to land on a new extrasolar planet only to find the readings were wrong and the planet they arrived on was totally unsuitable for human habitation... Back in stasis and another 300 year voyage back to earth?

What will life be like 600 years from now... what happens after 300 years when you arrive to the new planet and you find three years after you launched a new engine technology meant another country could get there in half the time and so while the planet is perfect, it has already all been claimed by people from a different country...

Would be the same issues for aliens coming here... the distances are probably so great it will need to be planned well in advance and after the mission is committed to something else might screw things up...