how its possible?

a reply to: james1947

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." may apply Vallee's hypothesis is concerned.

Kind of hard to test all the same given our distinct lack, possibly purposeful gap, where knowledge of interstellar/extra-dimensional travel is concerned.

Meaningful validation remains to be seen despite the mass sightings possibly down to the religious and phycological conditioning regarding the greater part of our race.

a reply to: james1947

so you want a A.I friendly database?
never gonna happen, the UFO phenomena is too abstract to an artificial mind

a reply to: Erno86

i like them too

a reply to: humanoidlord

Technically Google or any other advanced search engine is A.I friendly......to a point.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

we have found a lot of habitable planets, its likely there are even more
are you sure we are that significant?

Well, about 1.42% of discovered “potentially habitable exoplanets” could sustain life - as one datapoint.

So, if that’s an accurate figure we’re pretty rare:

www.forbes.com...

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Assemble
If you can free your mind from the false theory, you might be able to consider something else than ETH.

Be more than happy to, right after you show me something better; demonstrably better, and with science!

Until then I will stick with what science currently knows, and of course the scientific methods, procedure, etc. that have gone into supporting the currently held theories.

And, I'll be sticking with ETH since I can demonstrate a very high probability that it is correct!

When y'all can do better, let me know...

So I agree with the above - but - while we’re here I’ll note that I leave room for this:

What if “science” as we know it today is similar to religions a few thousand years ago?

What I mean by that is - science gives us sets of principles, processes, frameworks and the ability to make observations and quantify them. Thus proving or disproving many things along the way in a manner that holds water according to modern science. BUT - science, or the scientific method, is in essence a religion (though one I buy a whole heck of a lot more than what many people are told on Sunday’s!). Point here is that many years ago religion came up with answers to questions before we had science - and some of those answers were wonky. Now, science can say”nope, that’s not how it works - here’s the answer” but what if a few thousand year from now “science” as we know it today is so utterly primitive that we wouldn’t have had the slightest ability to analyze things beyond the physical world that we’re looked at as backwards know-nothings. We had it all wrong!

Now, I’m not saying I agree with the above commentary but I have to leave room for it. Plus, it’s just about the only way I can explain IDH and have it 100% make sense.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

Yeah I don't see what the hassle is. No doubt what you propose is far better, so I was curious to know.

For myself, I don't have a problem clicking on a couple of pages and keeping notes of the stuff I want to know, like I can do on the webpage ufologie.patrickgross.org... Maybe catalogue would be better.

I suppose what i'm saying is, before we had computers, people made do OK with a pile of books, called a library. Sure it might seem quaint and obsolete now, but it still works fine and produced/produces great results.

So for me, it's not a huge hassle to read through it. It's kinda like people who use their cars so much, and for so long, forget that it's still possible to walk 15 minutes to reach a local shop

Well this is going to sound a bit crazy, but, the bulk of what we now know, has been learned since 1970, and the invention of the microprocessor...that one little almost insignificant device is responsible for the building of today's knowledge base, and allows us to be able to use that knowledge with better efficiency. And, yes, I remember the days of no computers...building a computer without one was a serious pain...

But, today we have these things we call computers and electronic databases that allow us to process vastly more information is vastly less time...which is why we (mankind) are learning faster than any other time in history.

These computers and electronic databases are what made it possible for me to compile a new analysis of Betty Hill's "map" and determine that there IS a match to the real world. The tools allowed me to use real astrometrics to build a 3D representation of stars within 33 parsec, and eliminate the possibility of Human error.

By the way, I live in the country, not in town; so the only stores that I can "walk" to are a lumber yard, and an auto parts store...I would probably need my truck if I went for lumber, and I'd be stuck walking if I needed any auto parts.

Basically what I'm saying is that your "paper database" is fine for non-serious research, but, if you truly do wish to do serious research, you will need the modern tools, and a modern database.

ETA: I forgot to mention that a modern database and engine will provide vastly better data validation.

Some of you might not like this post, but it’s not wrong. To the contrary - this is accurate.

The world, and possibly UFOlogy as well does not have a data problem. We have loads of data. We lack the computing power to tie is all together and make heads or tails of it quickly in large batches at scale to create actionable intel to move humanity forward.

I can’t wait to third generation quantum computers - the amount of problems we would solve after we work the kinds out of the quantum systems will be game changing.

But, I’m also a “data guy” or sorts so maybe you just have to think like a data guy to buy what I’m saying here. But, doesn’t change the fact it’s true.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

We exist within around 5% of the observable universe. To date, we can't even tell you what the rest of the stuff that comprises our universe is made of nor observe or address the problem in any kind of meaningful manner, so it might not be any wonder if we are rare.

95% of the rest of the universe could quite possibly be teeming with antimatter life and we simply would not have the tools nor perception to ever be able to perceive such.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: james1947

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." may apply Vallee's hypothesis is concerned.

Kind of hard to test all the same given our distinct lack, possibly purposeful gap, where knowledge of interstellar/extra-dimensional travel is concerned.

That is what Mathematics is for! We can build virtual models of virtually anything using mathematics...let the testing begin.

IF Mr. Vallee's hypothesis holds any water at all, it can be shown using mathematics, and without the math, it fear it is only fiction.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: humanoidlord

Technically Google or any other advanced search engine is A.I friendly......to a point.

Googles engine is a relatively standard SQL based engine with a mildly AI front end. The AI appears in the form of heuristics to help make the search experience better.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

we have found a lot of habitable planets, its likely there are even more
are you sure we are that significant?

Well, about 1.42% of discovered “potentially habitable exoplanets” could sustain life - as one datapoint.

So, if that’s an accurate figure we’re pretty rare:

www.forbes.com...

I checked that out, and...it seems that the 1.42% isn't “potentially habitable planets”, but rather that is the percentage of all exoplanets that may be habitable...

Current estimates of the number of stars in the Milky Way are from 100 billion to 400 billion. Stars that can support life are not quite an numerous wince the range of stellar class is narrow, but basically about 22% of all stars fall into this narrow stellar range (stellar classes K, G, & F).

If we narrow that range further for the purposes of speculation, then we can use only the 7.6% that represents the "G" class stars (like Sol)...applying the math gives us; 107,920,000 such planets at the low end, and 431,680,000 at the high end... That is considering the entire galaxy.

Now here is where a real database comes in..."How many "G" class stars are there within 33 parsec of Earth?" The answer: "select * from xhip where dist < 33 and sptype like'%g%'". Where * = all data, dist=distance, and sptype=stellar class, and XHIP is the extended Hipparcos Data table. The return is 572 records or 572 "G" class stars within 33 parsec of Earth.

Doing that wee bit of math yields 8 stars with potentially habitable planets within 33 parsec of Earth (107.631605 light years)...and that is just the "G" class stars, there are 1144 "K" class and 401 "F" class...a total of around 30 stars...

Anyway, just a wee exercise around that 1.42% thing given local space...

It would seem that there is plenty of opportunity for Nature to have given Earth neighbors, and relatively closes ones at that.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

the figure is probally bigger than we think

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

So I agree with the above - but - while we’re here I’ll note that I leave room for this:

What if “science” as we know it today is similar to religions a few thousand years ago?

What I mean by that is - science gives us sets of principles, processes, frameworks and the ability to make observations and quantify them. Thus proving or disproving many things along the way in a manner that holds water according to modern science. BUT - science, or the scientific method, is in essence a religion (though one I buy a whole heck of a lot more than what many people are told on Sunday’s!). Point here is that many years ago religion came up with answers to questions before we had science - and some of those answers were wonky. Now, science can say”nope, that’s not how it works - here’s the answer” but what if a few thousand year from now “science” as we know it today is so utterly primitive that we wouldn’t have had the slightest ability to analyze things beyond the physical world that we’re looked at as backwards know-nothings. We had it all wrong!

Now, I’m not saying I agree with the above commentary but I have to leave room for it. Plus, it’s just about the only way I can explain IDH and have it 100% make sense.

I see what you are trying to say, however, science will be what it is today in 1,000,000 years, here's why; What science really is is making empirical observation and recording what is observed. Science can never change from that basic premise. Although the methods we use to "observe" have and will continue to change and improve.

If and when science is wrong, it will be because of Human interpretation of observed data, and probably not the data itself...And of course, as we learn to "observe" better our ultimate interpretation will also be better...

And, as for IDH, it can make 100% sense now, if only a real hypothesis can be formulated...

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: james1947

No idea who's paying, I just thought you'd be up for it since you suggested that the rest of us find all the stuff on google for free because it's there already. Knock yourself out buster.

I might be, if I had the time. Being retired doesn't mean I work less, just means I don't get paid as much...I have projects of my own like the Zeta Reticuli project, I'm writing a book, I'm the principal hardware/software engineer on a magnetic lifter project, and I provide custom software support for a major DFW Auto sales group.

Oh OK then so it makes sense to criticize the rest of us who are doing the best with what we have. Sure the US government can't afford it, but some people on a website should have it done already!

Again, I'm not criticizing...However, I do feel as though you have no appreciation for the magnitude of a project like this.
1. collect all relevant data in all extant databases regardless of data structures.
2. reverse engineer all those databases to create a common data structure that can accommodate virtually all data elements
3. transcribe old databases into the new one...this will require, probably manual, data type conversions.
4. create a set of queries and other constructs to acquire (mine) requested data.
5. publish system...and here is where the final roadblock will occur...copyright issues...all those databases required for the project will each have their own copyright, and of course owner...

a reply to: james1947

The math is whats of interest (Phi, Pi, G) at least where nature and our own universe is concerned.

The math is in the very code of reality. Displayed in just about everything from leaves to spiral galaxies.

I don't claim to understand the half of it all the same.

a reply to: james1947

Indeed, but it is getting better as the heuristics are refined.

And once it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck.........well it will probably taste good with Orange sauce for most intents and purpose.

True AI though, that's something that remains to be seen, quite possibly on the horizon all the same in as little as 5-20 years, especially if technological advancement continues into the fields of neuroscience and quantum computing.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: uncommitted

The term 'swamp gas' was used once, just once yet everyone who wants to knock anything said by someone who doesn't agree with their theory throws it out there - sound familiar?

i was just giving a hypothetical example, and in the only case that explanation was actually used, hynek was right, the description gave by the college girls and the police officers was identical to marsh gas (there was a possible UFO landing that day, but the other sightings, were indeed just swamp gas, possibly misidentified by paranoid witnesses)

The world was fairly much known to be a sphere for millennia - you may have been brought up on flawed educational material that suggests otherwise, but maybe that's the point.

[citation needed]

You seem to be coming to your own conclusions and deciding they are right because they suit how your view. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it every day, but at any objective level it's nothing more than your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold..... doesn't actually mean anything more than that.

i did my research, have you?

The point is, you have nothing to research on, you used the term swamp gas as though it was a common term, but now you seem to backtrack.

There is no actual evidence to research upon, you actually mean you have read books you agree with, that's not research, it's called looking for opinions that match your own.

If I have called this wrong, please supply your base for research - if it's nothing more than books that have no evidence or proof to back them up then please don't bother.

a reply to: uncommitted

The point is, you have nothing to research on, you used the term swamp gas as though it was a common term, but now you seem to backtrack.

i used it as a hypothetical example, FFS

There is no actual evidence to research upon, you actually mean you have read books you agree with, that's not research, it's called looking for opinions that match your own. If I have called this wrong, please supply your base for research - if it's nothing more than books that have no evidence or proof to back them up then please don't bother.

the belief in flat earth certainly existed, at least among the poorer classes
anyway this is not the topic of the thread

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: uncommitted

The point is, you have nothing to research on, you used the term swamp gas as though it was a common term, but now you seem to backtrack.

i used it as a hypothetical example, FFS

There is no actual evidence to research upon, you actually mean you have read books you agree with, that's not research, it's called looking for opinions that match your own. If I have called this wrong, please supply your base for research - if it's nothing more than books that have no evidence or proof to back them up then please don't bother.

the belief in flat earth certainly existed, at least among the poorer classes
anyway this is not the topic of the thread

Actually it is quite the purpose. It's a myth that the 'poorer classes' believed the earth was flat, it's the product of a misjudgement introduced initially into American educational material in the early 20th century, and it's a case of poor information becoming accepted by many, information that was (and I'll be kind) badly researched but still clung onto by people that find it hard to accept their belief may be built on shaky foundations................... that's got a lot to do with the topic of this thread.

a reply to: uncommitted

no, its off topic