Skepulating: The Future of Automobile Transportation

This is my first (and hopefully not the only) post under the category of "Skepulating," where I will speculate skeptically on topics I find interesting. Today, I'm choosing the topic of Google's autonomous cars.

Cars that Drive Themselves

Perhaps you're not much of a science fan or maybe you just overlooked it. If so, you might have missed one of the most interesting things to come from Google since the powerful search engine or the Android OS (and the slew of phones which use it). Back in October of 2010, Google announced that it had a fleet of autonomous vehicles that had logged over 140,000 miles without any accidents. At that time, Google's goal was to solve really big problems through technology (of course now their mission is to take over the world). The announcement was their new goal to improve driver safety. Most people who fly know that it is much safer than driving. How much safer, you ask? Try about 50 times safer! The statistics of being killed in a car accident in the US are about 1 in 6500 for a year, and over a 78 year life expectancy that works out to about 1 in 83. I don't like those odds. Can we all agree that cars are dangerous? I mean, you're controlling a machine which weighs thousands of pounds, at anywhere from 25-80mph down a path crowded with obstacles, signals and other ever-changing conditions. Almost all accidents are made through human error and as Google's CEO at the time said, "It's a shame that the car was invented before the computer."

No it looks okay... you can barely tell it's there.

Since the announcement, Google's fleet has been traveling over some of California's most freighting and winding highways. They are loaded with high tech systems including multiple cameras, radar and a laser range finder. The cars also use navigation provided by Google Maps, which is updated constantly by thousands of manual drivers around the world.

Let Us... Skepulate

All this got me thinking – and quite excitedly too. Driving is something I have gotten used to over the years. It's not something I usually do for recreation, but I'm far from hiring a personal driver. It's a necessity for most Americans. It's part of our culture and we take pride in our vehicles. Not many of us will choose a car based solely on economy or efficiency. It's got to look nice too, because our vehicles are an extension of ourselves. How many people drive huge trucks and SUVs to haul lots of kids or equipment around?

I just hope it doesn't go in this direction...

Autonomous vehicles might have the unintended consequence of changing our car-loving culture. First of all, cars will be designed much differently. If you want a fully automatic vehicle, you have no need for a steering wheel, pedals, shifters... even headlights. Cars could be designed more like the rear of a limousine, where seats are arranged in a square shape. Another fundamental change in our driving culture would be the idea of needing your own vehicle. When I first heard about this technology, I pictured a future in which we buy some self-driving car, and used it for ourselves in our day-to-day tasks. After talking with a friend of mine, however, the picture changed. Think about this: Would you really need your own vehicle if you could have one on demand? You could just get on your phone or computer and request a vehicle to pick you up (you could schedule them well in advance as well). Just like a taxi, you could use it as long or for whatever you want. Maybe you could request a smaller car for just yourself or a large van for you and your family. When you reach your destination, you could exit the vehicle and it would go wherever it was needed. Imagine being able to relax on your way to work. You could eat, talk to fellow passengers, read a book or even sleep! Had a few too many celebrating with friends one night? You'll get home safe with the computer at the helm!

The cars won't be the only thing to change though. Traffic signs and signals could basically be eliminated if all cars were automated. Of course, the transition will probably be over years, so maybe at first we'll see special lanes on roads and highways for the driver-less cars. Street lights could also be obsolete saving energy and reducing overall light pollution.

I will never trust my life to something this creepy though...

Of course, nothing is perfect. Computers can make mistakes as well. What happens when the network goes down? Are you left at home calling into work because there are no cars available to pick you up? One of the most negative impacts I foresee though, would be in the industry of commercial drivers. I'm not just talking about the personal driver I mentioned earlier, but think about all the drivers in the world who would basically be out of the job. Taxi drivers would probably be the first to go since this technology started with everyday cars. I'm sure bus and semi drivers could be replaced eventually as well. I would be a little freighted if I was in their shoes. Maybe not right away, but perhaps in 10 years, they could all be out of work. But when it comes to saving lives (and we're talking about 30,000 per year), I think we have no choice.

Resistance is Futile

Imagine if there was a company, or even dozens of companies, that offered these cars as taxis. Maybe they could get special bulk discounts from car manufacturers and discounts on maintenance and fuel. Let's do some quick math, shall we? A company could buy a fleet of vehicles for $10,000 each (let's say they are 4-door sedans). Maybe they could get 300,000 miles out of them before they sold them for scrap. If the cars got about 25 miles per gallon fuel efficiency, they would use 12,000 gallons of fuel in their lifespan, which, at $4 cost per gallon of gas (assuming future bulk pricing) would add $48,000 to the cost of the vehicle. Let's add another $10,000 in lifetime maintenance costs just for good measure and another $5000 for taxes and licensing. That brings the total cost of the vehicle for the company to $73,000. The companies cost of a single vehicle per mile would be less than $0.25. The company could charge $0.50 per mile and still make a significant profit. (Of course, my numbers are all completely made up, much like in the famous Drake Equation, where many of the variables are assumed). The total average miles driven per person is about 13,500 according to the US Department of Transportation. At the price of $0.50 per mile that works out to over $500 per month. That may seem like a lot, but if you calculated the total cost of your own vehicle, you'll probably find that it is the same or higher. And maybe that would also influence us to change our ways. We might drive less or more efficiently, carpool, or maybe mass transportation such as buses could become even more popular. All in all, this doesn't look good for car companies, who rely on our current car-loving (and buying) culture.

One thing I know for certain: Cars are going to change. Completely autonomous vehicles may be a decade away, but that doesn't mean it will be a night and day transition. We may see cars that can react to impacts before they happen by taking control briefly. There already exists a model from Honda which can keep your car between lines on the highway much like your cruise control can maintain your speed. I don't know about you, but I look forward to the day when I can take a nap or watch a movie on a long trip.

Penny Auctions

You may have seen commercials for a site called "Beezid.com", whichfeature name-brand items for insanely huge discounts. For example,the particular commercial I saw showed an auction for an iPad going for less than $20. Wow, that's probably $200 less than a used, firstgeneration item... on eBay! I love pointing out when old adages apply to relevant topics. You know the saying that goes, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is"? In the case of penny auctions, that is most definitely the case.

Before I get started, I want to mention another interesting anecdote I discovered whileresearching this topic. Doing a quick search for "beezid scam" on google gave me some interesting results. The sponsored ad by google was of course a link to the site in question- that was no surprise.The next two appeared to be blogs, like this one, which appeared skeptical of the site at first. Reading further I saw a link for afree 25-pack of bids for signing up on the site. Oh, you betterbelieve my  skepti-sense was tingling after that.

These penny auction sites are not outright deceiving their users though. In fact, theyare very upfront and honest. They explain how everything works right off the bat: Every auction starts at $0.00. Each bid increases the auction price by a penny. Here's the catch, (which theyexplain to you as well); you have to pay money each time you bid. Let me state this more clearly. You are paying to bid, whether you win or not, you are spending money to raise the auction price. From online reviews I've read, each time you bid on Beezid, you are charged $1.00*. So let's think about this: 

An iPod Touch was sold for $19.07. I'm no mathematician, but I believe they sold an iPod for $1907... plus the $19.07 the"winner" must pay. The MSRP on the most expensive version of the iPod Touchis $399. Even if the figures in my example are off by a few dollars, I can almost guarantee this site is making hundreds of dollars on these trendy gadgets.

That's just one example. They also have laptops over $40 and TVs going over$100... and if you're still doing the math, that's actually $4000 and $10,000 people have paid to raise the auction price that high.This is how penny auctions work. I would call it a scam, but they tellyou exactly how the system works right when you sign up.

In case you were thinking you could jump in on an auction and bid at the last second, they've thought of that too. Every time someone bids, time is added to the auction clock. You know what, I don't even know why they even call these auctions. This is nothing like an auction whatsoever. I am not endorsingthis site in any way shape or form, unless you enjoy gambling for merchandise. Okay, not even in that case.

* You can actually bid for bid packs which may be cheaper... but of course, if you don't win the auction you're not getting that money back.

The A-Word

Over 10 years ago at a church retreat I accepted the Lord, Jesus Christ, as my God and savior. I was baptized at the Westside Baptist Church soon after. Years later, I look back on this part of my life in an entirely different light and wonder what led me to that conclusion.

The earliest religious experiences I remember were from my childhood, perhaps as young as five or six years old. I don't remember going to church with my parents that young, but instead, it was my father's parents who brought us with them on those Sunday mornings. To be honest, I did not enjoy those days. I don't remember ever protesting however, perhaps because I loved my grandparents too much to upset them. My mother's parents also brought us to church later on, but I don't think we attended Sunday school so it wasn't as boring to me. Then, in my teens, my brother started going to church with friends... on his own. That was kind of surprising to me since I think we both thought church was boring when we were young. I started going too because it sounded fun. It was. I made friends in my youth group and eventually went on the retreat. I thought it was the right thing to do. My friends were Christians, my family was Christian, it must have been right. After all, if you're not saved, you will go to Hell.

A small turning point in my life was at my Mom's church (not the same church my friends attended) when I was about 18. During a Sunday school lesson, my "teacher" had the audacity to suggest that the bible should not be taken literally. It did contain moral lessons worthy of following, but it was ultimately infallible since it was written by many people, and translated by many more people. And let's face it, some of the things in the old testament were not the best things to  teach your kids. Maybe this was the seed which led me to seek truth in my life after so many years of following other's idea of the truth. I had had my doubts in the past, but I didn't want to disappoint anyone- especially God. At the time, I was aware of the existence of other religions, but that was about it. In my world civilization class a few years later though, I learned about our earliest history. I learned about our cultures and religions and began to see flaws in my  beliefs. First of all, my religion was not the first. In fact, the religion my religion came from was not the first either. So what made mine the right one? I had no answer. 

Fast forward several years and I was no longer attending church. I lived on my own and had very different friends. I had a friend that described himself as agnostic. I had never even heard the term before, so he explained it to me. He didn't believe in god because there wasn't enough evidence to support the idea. At that time, I still believed so we didn't really get into it. (I was never the preachy type of Christian.) I also had gay friends. They were really not that different from my other friends, except for the bigotry they experienced. I felt sympathy for them in their struggle for equal marital rights, despite what the church says about it. I started to think that church wasn't really for me, but I still felt that there must be a God. The world was just too complex and amazing to be random chance. 

What I was really lacking was knowledge. Instead of trying to find answers the hard way- through learning- I had taken the easy explanation. With many books, podcasts and tv shows, however, I  started to expand my knowledge of the universe we live in. We really are an infinitely small speck, in a very, very short history of time. This was amazing revelation to me. I now realize that the universe is not random. Laws and properties of our physical universe are what allow things to exist as they are. 

I found the atheist community about a year ago. Despite what I had previously thought, these were perfectly normal people who just had a different view from my Christian family and friends. They were not all evil heathens. I realize now that I am and always have been an atheist. I was never fully convinced, but I was always afraid that I might be wrong. What I had learned about Hell and the devil scared me into doing what I thought I had to do to be a good person, to please my family and to go to Heaven.

So why am I writing this? I feel like I owe it to all of you who know me as a Christian to know the truth. I hope that you can still accept me as a son, a brother, a grandson, a cousin, and a friend. I really am not much different from who I used to be, except that I am a freethinker, and a pursuer of knowledge and truth. I also want you all to understand that I will never- and I can't emphasize this enough- never force (or let anyone else force) my children to go to church or practice any religion. If they end up Christians, Buddhists, or atheists, that is their choice, and I will love them unconditionally no matter what they choose.

SCAMs: Laser Beams for Your Head

This is the first article in what I'm calling SCAMs, which stands for Supplementary, Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (an acronym coined by Dr. Mark Crislip - a skeptical writer and podcaster). There are so many of these that I feel they deserve their own type of notation. Some topics I may write about in this category include homeopathy, naturopathy, and hypnosis therapy.

Look at that; there's an article about laser hair regrowth in the paper! Oh, it seems I've wasted $700 on this thing.

While on my flight to San Francisco, I decided to peruse the Skymall catalog which can be found on almost any American flight. I love some of the things people have come up with to solve everyday problems such as "I want to make my own soda" - the gadget displayed on the front page showed a clear bottle, filled with water and being injected with what I would assume to be carbon dioxide (that is the gas used to "carbonate" water). Although interesting to watch, I would argue that the convenience and relatively cheap price of store bought soda would steer me away from purchasing this item. Well, that and the $100-200 price tag. Still, it got my attention so I decided to take a look further. I don't mind some of these silly gadgets and other odd purchases, such as a "life-sized" statue of Bigfoot (I'm not sure how you can claim it to be life-size without actually having any proof of the mythical creature's existence, let alone it's size). There are some so-called innovations or breakthrough technologies that make my skepti-sense tingle though. The focus of my article today concerns the concept of using lasers and in some cases, red LEDs to regrow hair.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who suffer from hair loss, I feel for you. I feel like I can empathize with you a little in that I will often pull my hair back to inspect my hairline, in fear that it has receded since my last check. I don't think anyone wants to lose their hair - at least on their head. So what is the mechanism by which a laser could "reactivate" a hair follicle to regrow hair? Upon my return home, I was able to research this further. It turns out that even they admit they don't know exactly how it works (http://www.spencerforrest.com/laser-hair-growth/x5-hair-laser-faqs.asp#b3). For those keeping track, this is a second, a big red flag. The ads mention how you can sit and relax while you wear this giant apparatus on your head. No work required? Oh how tempting! They do reference the FDA, using a phrase I have never heard: "FDA cleared". Again, when I got home I was able to find out what that meant exactly:

The FDA cleared two United States companies for marketing through the Premarket Notification/510(k) process as adjunctive devices for promoting hair growth, the personal use device was cleared for males, and the prescription unit was cleared for females. Clearances were based on the presentation of clinical data to support such claims. These clearances brought global media exposure educating the public about this revolutionary hair loss treatment. iRestore has not been evaluated by the FDA and is being marketed as a cosmetic device.

Yes, even women can suffer from thinning hair and deceptive marketing.

Everything sounds good until you reach that last sentence. The device was not actually evaluated for efficacy, and it is approved as a cosmetic device only. So these "clinical trials" were presented, but not evaluated? Maybe now you're thinking like I am, that being FDA cleared is completely meaningless. Presumably I could market a pencil as an ear wax remover and get it cleared through the FDA. There are no details of the trials such as how many people they tested, if they were using any other drugs in conjunction with their device, and how long they were tested for. Of course they only have so much ad space, so maybe they just couldn't include this information, so I searched their site. On the first device I looked up, the X5 by Spencer Forrest, there was no information. The second device I researched looked like the top of a space helmet. It was priced at about $500. Again I could find no links to the clinical data or any information on the method of action.

Maybe you are still skeptical, but you see a fail-safe. Even if the device doesn't work, you've got (in the case of the iRestore) 6 months to try it out. If it doesn't work, you can simply return it before that time for a full refund. "Those fools." You think as you rub your hands together. You've found the loophole! Almost everything has some kind of return period though. How many times have you ever returned something? Okay, how many times have you returned something which had to be shipped... and you had to pay- most likely- more than $10 to ship back? Red lasers and LEDs are not expensive at all and yet these devices range from $200-600. With such a high profit margin, I doubt they would lose money on returns. Many people won't bother, will wait too long, or convince themselves that the device does work.

I'm commenting right now!

If you're still sold on the idea that a focused beam of coherent energy can stimulate a hair follicle, do me this one favor: Buy a red laser pen for about $10 and try that first. These lasers are of the same wavelength (650nm) as the $200+ ones. If you actually see results, buy the cheapest one of all of these and comment on my article about how wrong I am.

Skepticism and Internet Security

Being skeptical does not make you a cynic or a curmudgeon. It just means you use logic and reasoning in your decision making. It's not just about debating conspiracy theories; it can apply to almost anything. Computers have become an almost essential item in so many households, and their ease-of-use has made them accessible by people who don't know how to protect themselves. As such, nefarious individuals or groups have taken advantage of these people through viruses, trojans, malware, spyware and phishing schemes. In this article I will give you tips on how you can protect yourself.

It used to be that email was the most common way to transmit a virus. Now, hackers have taken advantage of security holes in internet browsers which allow you to be infected just by going to a website. A popular method is using social media sites like Facebook or twitter to spread links to these webpages. Many times, you will see a friend post something like "check out this hot video of..." or "look at my pictures" with an inciting photo. The fact is that your friend didn't even post it in the first place. They are infected with some kind  of malware and it is posting from their account without them knowing. You should always take a minute to examine the link before you click on it. If it seems really bizarre or out of character, you could ask the person directly. Chances are they didn't even know they were infected and you could be preventing further spread of the malware. Browsers are always being updated and patched for these security holes, so make sure you're browser is up-to-date frequently. Email is still a method used to spread viruses. Although  email providers offer virus protection, it is still possible for them to penetrate the added security. Never open an email attachment unless you knew it was coming. If someone you know sent you something unsolicited, it could be that they are infected and didn't know it.

A phishing scheme is usually something that looks legitimate,  like an email from your bank, but it is faked in order to get you to give them your personal information. They have become more complex and harder to detect, but there are a couple rules you can follow to protect yourself. Most banks, utility companies and other website will never ask you to change your password in an email. If there is a problem, they will ask you to go to their site, but they will not give you a link (you should know where to go). Links can be a little deceptive due to the nature of HTML. Basically, a link could look like http://www.google.com but it is actually sending you to www.somedomain.com. If you hover your mouse over the link, look at the bottom of your email client window or browser (this is sometimes called the status bar) and it should show you where you are going. Phishing schemes can also come in the form of a pop-up window, which look just like a Windows message, convincing you to download their malicious software. During the instillation process, you may be asked to enter some personal information or even a credit card. If it's not something you ordered, never enter your credit card or personal information into any application. Some of these malicious programs will even tell you to try a different credit card because the one you entered did not authenticate. This way, they can collect more than one card number from you.

There are a few general rules I use to protect myself. The most important is to keep your system up to date. Windows has included a system updater since Windows 95, and with the newer versions such as Windows Vista and Windows 7, they can be automated so your system is always up-to-date. You should also update your Internet browser frequently. Some of them, like Google Chrome and Firefox can automatically check for updates when you launch them. Use some kind of spyware/malware detection software. Many of them free and pretty easy to use. (I have been using Malwarebytes for a few years and I think it does a great job.) Anti-virus software is also an option. The last piece of advice I can offer is to make backups of your important data in case you do get some nasty virus. Some people make CD or DVD archives, but they can degrade over time which can negate the purpose of using them. There are online services where you can store your files for free, like dropbox.com, but it requires you to upload the files manually and has a limit on how much free storage they will allow. Carbonite.com is a site which will make automated backups of all your local files on one computer for a low monthly or yearly rate. The good thing about Carbonite is that it is automatic, can maintain multiple versions of your files, and offers one-way encryption so only you can view the files.

Using weak passwords, or the same password for many sites makes it easier for hackers to access your data. For social media sites, blogs or forums, it might be okay to use the same, simple password. As long as there isn't any personal information, it wouldn't be a total loss if your account was hacked. For banks and other financial institutions, you should use separate and more complex passwords. Although it is not a great solution, if you use your browser to store your passwords, make sure you have a good system password. A good password would be something that is not in the dictionary, contains numbers, capital and lower case letters and even symbols. Lastpass is a plugin for web browsers that stores your passwords using one-way encryption. Once you have entered the master password, you can store your private information to automatically fill in web forms such as login pages, credit cards and address fields.

The internet can be a scary place, but with a little critical thinking you can avoid becoming a victim of a malicious attack. Be wary of suspicious links, keep your system up-to-date and use good passwords.

Chemtrails: More Commonly known as Contrails

If you've never heard of "chemtrails", you are not alone. As far as conspiracies go, it is a little obscure. On a nut-job scale of 1 to 10, 1 being Bigfoot and 10 being the reptilian overlords mentioned in my previous post, this is about an 8. Add to that the idea that it is all part of a plan by an elite, super governmental agency to rule the world, I would raise it to a 9.5. If you have to add more than one conspiracy to your conspiracy to have it make sense, you've essentially added two piles of crap together to form an even larger pile of crap.

Okay, you're probably still wondering what the heck a chemtrail is. There are a small number of people who believe that contrails formed by airplanes are actually a chemical spray released intentionally by someone on board for various reasons. I have heard a few so far. One theory is that an agency or the government is "seeding" clouds to produce rain. The government has been testing this for years with mixed results. In fact, just a few years ago during the 2008 Summer Olympics, the Chinese government attempted this in order to avoid rain during the opening and closing ceremonies. (The idea was to make it rain before the events so that the clouds wouldn't rain on the day of the event.) Another theory is that the chemtrails act like artificial clouds, which reflect sunlight to reduce global warming. I can think of at least a few alternatives that would be safer and more effective, but I'll talk about that later. And the most recent claim I heard was that the chemicals were being released to alter soil so that only Monsanto seeds would grow in it (Monsanto is a company which engineers seeds for farmers, and is often used as fodder for conspiracy theories).

As early as 1905, the government has experimented with cloud seeding. Over the years, new techniques were developed which provided varied results. The basic principle is that by introducing massive amounts of particulates into clouds, you could create artificial rain. I fail to see the validity of this claim for a couple of reasons. The first of which leaves me wondering what the benefit is to the people creating the rain. Are the farmers paying them to do it instead of relying on nature itself or irrigating? If you could, as the Chinese attempted, prevent rain by pre-seeding the clouds, then what is the benefit of a drought? Perhaps malice is the only motive they can come up with; in which case I must warn them, you can't wear your tinfoil hat during an MRI. Even if you assume cloud seeding is effective, it's hard to come up with a logical reason for doing it.

Creating artificial clouds to combat global warming doesn't seem like a bad idea, until you really think about it. Using clouds to reflect sunlight seems plausible, but clouds can disperse and dissipate quickly, depending on weather conditions, and they would only cover a small percentage of the sky. Furthermore, any small benefit gleaned from this process would be outweighed by the possible health risks of dumping these chemicals. The cost of carrying the extra payload on airplanes would make it very cost ineffective as well. A more effective and cost-savings solution would be to offer incentives for reflective roofing materials and new road construction. It would be much safer and last longer too. If the government was trying to combat global warming, why would it be necessary to keep it a secret? Oh so many questions, oh so little answers.

The last claim I mentioned was that some super agency was using the chemical spray to change the properties of the soil so that only Monsanto brand seeds could grow in it. Don't let the complexity of this conspiracy fool you into giving it false credibility. If you apply some critical thinking, it's just as silly as the first two claims (or perhaps more so). If you were heavily (or supported people who were) invested in the Monsanto company, it might be beneficial to eliminate the company's competition. Altering soil by releasing chemicals 30,000ft in the air is laughable for a few reasons. The first of which would be to ask, why not limit your dispersion of the chemicals to rural areas? I have seen many pictures of supposed chemtrails over urban cities such as Atlanta (which has pretty sizable airport...hmmm). I don't think Monsanto loses much money from people with their own gardens. Are we also supposed to believe that this altered soil wouldn't effect common foliage such as trees and grass? I haven't seen Monsanto brand trees or grass seed on sale at Home Depot yet. While you are suspending your common sense, you might as well ignore the fact that everyone involved (which would have to be thousands) in the conspiracy is essentially blinding spraying chemicals on their families, their friends, and themselves. Of course everyone has a price, but at what point does it become cost ineffective to keep everyone quiet.

Some people think there is a difference between the contrails you see following a plane and shortly dissipating and the ones that linger for hours and turn into clouds. The science involved is pretty basic. If you have a rough understanding of cloud formation, you can understand how a jet exhaust could create a cloud. At high altitudes, the air is thin, cold and usually low in humidity. Jet engines release many things in their exhaust, including CO2, water vapor and other particulates. Water vapor condenses to form tiny droplets which are visible as a haze or cloud. Depending on the altitude, temperature and relative humidity, the cloud can last a few lengths of the plane or stretch across the horizon. But some people try to debunk this argument by saying that the long-lasting trails are seen at the same time as ones that disappear quickly. If the planes were flying side-by-side, I might actually give this theory a second thought. More than likely, the planes are flying at different altitudes and in different regions of the sky. Atmospheric conditions around each plane will vary. In the above picture, the "chemtrail" they are pointing out is simply a contrail that has been twisted and morphed, most likely from wind.

Trying to debate someone who believes in this nonsense is an exercise in futility. If you don't believe them, you are close-minded, influenced only by "mainstream" media or a sheep; with a fragile view of the world around you and a fear of the "truth". That goes for almost every other conspiracy too. If you have some free time and want to make a difference, take the time to debate with them. You should know, however, that you will never convince them they are wrong. Your goal is to influence those people who have not decided one way or the other about the validity of the conspiracy. Good luck!

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

If you're going to post crap on Facebook about our world being ruled by reptilian alien overlords, you had better have a mountain of evidence to back your claims. Evidence is not the one website you found with scrolling text in all caps at the top, proclaiming the aliens will kill all who resist.

Your first line of reasoning should come from common sense. How plausible is this idea? You should be able to answer simple questions yourself, without resorting to simply posting links. I've had link after link shoved down my throat before, and believe me, it doesn't work. If you want to post links, they should be sources to back up your the arguments you are making. You know; like you learned in high school. Legitimate websites should link to sources of it's claims too. There are many sites, however, that link sources; but the sources are just other articles written within the same site. (This is another way for them to make money, since many sites have ads that pay for page views.) This does not make them a credible source alone. YouTube is also a popular source, but the information contained is often hit-or-miss; and it is full of cranks and misinformation. With the constant improvement and decreased cost of technology, it has become easier to make phony videos look very realistic. The videos on YouTube are notorious for not linking to sources or even providing any kind of credentials either. Wikipedia and science journals are good sources of crowd sourced and or peer reviewed information.

Do everyone a favor and seriously try to disprove your own theory. If there are too many unknowns or coverups required to make your conspiracy work, your theory is nothing more than a giant "what if" scenario.