Breaking BAASS, Assessing AATIP and Doubting Thomas ‘DeLonge’

a reply to: gippo888

Rare does not mean nonexistent ...

Agreed. That was my point. But the null hypothesis has to be on the table too without any conclusive proof.

.. the phenomenon is elusive, nebulous, no one knows the true extent of this problem.

That's a huge non-specific claim.It may just be nothing more than superstition, misunderstanding and magical thinking. Although, it could also be something weird and truly anomalous. But, yes, we do not know the extent of the issue at all.

Government employees speak of cover-ups, of hidden documents ... as time passed the documents emerged

All governments have secrets. But I am not aware of any documents confirming the concealment of extraterrestrial life or technology. Assange and Snowden found nothing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it also doesn't mean it does.

I think they have no control, they try to hide They can hide because the phenomenon is not manifest openly Gregory Cason admitted there are other videos, therefore there is material that we have never seen

Yes, but why assume this is all about hiding ET as opposed to revealing secret weapons, the capabilities of sensor systems and military interception tactics as stated.

originally posted by: mirageman
That's a huge non-specific claim.It may just be nothing more than superstition, misunderstanding and magical thinking. Although, it could also be something weird and truly anomalous. But, yes, we do not know the extent of the issue at all.

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management.
www.dni.gov...

I think advanced technology means "intelligent"
I think that every intelligence can decide whether to show itself or not

All governments have secrets. But I am not aware of any documents confirming the concealment of extraterrestrial life or technology. Assange and Snowden found nothing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it also doesn't mean it does.

Assange was interested in anti-US politics, he wasn't interested in UFOs
Snowden I think he wasn't in the right place to get UFO info, intelligence works in closed compartments.

Yes, but why assume this is all about hiding ET as opposed to revealing secret weapons, the capabilities of sensor systems and military interception tactics as stated.

They are the witnesses of the US military forces and the intelligence who speak of ET
Without the "authoritative" testimonies, ufology would not exist, it would have the same consideration as ghosts or santa claus.

originally posted by: gippo888

They are the witnesses of the US military forces and the intelligence who speak of ET
Without the "authoritative" testimonies, ufology would not exist, it would have the same consideration as ghosts or santa claus.

Not really.
Because we have evidence of intelligent life (us) eventually arising from fusion (the Sun)- we can make a realistic guess about the likelihood of other intelligent life forms out there based on the number of observable Suns.

ET is entirely likely to exist due to the massive number of Suns - not because of proof or evidence presented by witnesses.

This is what makes UFO-logy compelling to none experiencers/believers...and also makes it an almost perfect limited hangout for nefarious parties to occupy.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Let's substract from that huge number of suns those who are already dead. Of those still alive, let substract those about to explode or implode; from the remaining suns left, let's substract those with planets orbiting around them; now, let's substract those who are orbiting at the correct orbit; let's now remove from that number those who have a life supporting atmosphere with water.

Before finding the total, let's remove those who have no intelligent life. Let's now substract those who have not a technological civilization. Let's now remove from that figure those who have passed the self-destruction filter. Finally, let's compute the probability of a catastrophic cosmic event destroying the planet.

It seems only a couple of planets are left, so distantly separated from each other that any attempt to visit each other is close to nil. And even if they managed to cover those vast distances there is still one problem to overcome: life span is limited due to serious biological constraints.

Whistling in the dark does not end loneliness.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Jukiodone

It seems only a couple of planets are left, so distantly separated from each other that any attempt to visit each other is close to nil. And even if they managed to cover those vast distances there is still one problem to overcome: life span is limited due to serious biological constraints.

.. you're going to have to expand on your calculations of how you get to "only a couple" if you want to discuss sensibly.

With 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars to go at - including the acknowledgement intelligent life is much rarer than fusion - that still leaves "lots and lots" of possibilities.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Not really.
Because we have evidence of intelligent life (us) eventually arising from fusion (the Sun)- we can make a realistic guess about the likelihood of other intelligent life forms out there based on the number of observable Suns.
ET is entirely likely to exist due to the massive number of Suns - not because of proof or evidence presented by witnesses.
This is what makes UFO-logy compelling to none experiencers/believers...and also makes it an almost perfect limited hangout for nefarious parties to occupy.

I think the UFO cases do not coincide with the behavior of aliens from other planets.
I do not believe in the hypotheses of the galactic federation (Greer) and not even in a civilization in the depths of the sea (Elizondo) ... they are not consistent with the ufological cases (grotesque sightings, abductions, contactisms ...)
But that's just my thoughts ...
The universe, for us, is still a mystery ... let's try to understand at least what happens here.

The problem with why they can’t find out what UFOs are is they can’t apply any scientific methodology to the irregular phenomenon, unlike, say, studying natural phenomena, such as the sun we know will rise every day.

Therefore, they can’t formulate an intelligent hypothesis that is at the base of the scientific method.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
/

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

So actually, all of this is basically more art( or something else) than science because they can’t apply the above to the UAP phenomenon, something so irregular that it can’t be measured or tested.

So, all these folks always crying, “let's get science on this," are just whistling in the wind.

Though individual experience is for the individual who can't give such experience to anyone other than on a belief basis.

It may be a lesson to modern man that the vaunted science he so adores himself over has its limits within a limited consciousness.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Let's narrow the scope. This thread is basically about whether the so-called UAPs are human drones or alien crafts.

In order to discuss sensibly, we need to agree what we are talking about here. Are we talking about intelligent life
visiting Earth, or just about intelligent life in the entire Universe, or just about non intelligent life in the Universe? The number of suns in the Universe, or the size of the Universe is irrelevant for what concerns discerning the nature of the so-called UAPs. It is indeed relevant for computing the probability of intelligent life forms in the Universe, but proving that life is common in the Universe does not prove that life is intelligent, neither that it can cover the distance between two star systems, nor that it can even exist at the same time your civilization does.

What you need is two civilizations (your and the ETI) interacting, and computations shows the probability is close to nil, no matter the size of the Universe. The thing is that even in an endless, infinite Universe the life span of your civilization is limited. In your case, on average, just about 10,000 years. And you need the ETI civilization to share your timeline if you both wish to interact.

No, the number of stars is not the relevant parameter in this discussion. You can have an infinite forest, yet you'll never meet an unicorn.

On the other hand, increasing the number of stars means increasing the probability of solar flares and supernova events, all of which wipe civilizations out with a probability higher than the probability of intelligence emerging.

Intelligent life is a very rare phenomena so you can figure out how extremely low is the probability of having not just one, but two civilizations close enough to technologically be able to interact, assuming one of them want to interact, which is something you also need to explain.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Jukiodone

No, the number of stars is not the relevant parameter in this discussion. You can have an infinite forest, yet you'll never meet an unicorn.

We have zero examples of Unicorns.
We have at least 1 example of intelligent life arising from fusion.

As a gambler I know that when an event has already happened - the odds of it happening again increases.
Bayesian statistical inference seems to agree.

a reply to: Jukiodone

As a gambler I know that when an event has already happened - the odds of it happening again increases.

You are then, truly a gambler if you believe that. You are not a statistician, or a very good gambler.


If I roll 7 once, the odds remain 833:4167 that I will do so again.

The next intelligence report should talk about Foreign Spying and Airborne Trash
Especially Chinese drones ...

Many Military U.F.O. Reports Are Just Foreign Spying or Airborne Trash
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Jukiodone

Your Bayesian statistical inference seems to agree with this reasoning:

- Number of starfaring civilizations we know of: zero.
- Expected probability of finding at least one starfaring civilization given above probability: zero.

Long live Bayes!

a reply to: Direne

At some point you substituted an (evidence based) assertion of intelligent life arising from fusion- for a non evidenced "star faring civilisation".

a reply to: Phage

Jesus.... who rattled your cage

a reply to: Jukiodone

No, I didn't. I simply applied your trick: abusing Bayes theorem.

You stated intelligence life is a must in the Universe because you found one civilization, yours, so you extrapolate that single result to the entire Universe. By the same token, I've found one civilization unable to travel to the nearest star system, yours, and hence I extrapolate my result to the entire Universe.

A U.S. official released advances on the upcoming UAP report
It seems as inconclusive as the previous one ...

While it is unclear how many new reports will be included in the upcoming update, a U.S. official told ABC News that the most recent UAP incidents can be explained as a mix of weather balloons, airborne clutter, and foreign surveillance. But the official stressed that other incidents still cannot be explained.
The official added that it cannot be determined who is behind the foreign surveillance but the most likely candidates would be China and Russia since they have the most interest in monitoring the U.S. military.

www.msn.com...

a reply to: Direne

The potential for NHI in the Universe is one of the reasons UFO-logy/ET' is a good a limited hangout.
That's the point in terms of relevance to this thread.

Have you got anything to say about "Breaking BAASS, Assessing AATIP and Doubting Thomas ‘DeLonge"- or are you seriously expecting some sort of astrobiology/meaning of life debate?

a reply to: Jukiodone

Scream and kick as much as you want. You were the one stating AATIP/BAASS are to be granted some merit because, as per your words, we cannot rule out the exitence of visiting ETIs because the Universe is huge, and you backed your statement trying to apply Bayes conditional probability theorem, the same theorem by virtue of which visiting aliens should be ruled out.

And if you wish a serious use of Bayes theorem, then consider computing the probability of those UAPs being Chinese drones knowing the probability of hostile drones flying over the strike carrier force (1), the probability of UAPs being Chinese drones knowing that they always appear when some Chinese ship in disguise as a fishing vessel is around the fleet (1), and knowing that the probability of using cheap drones to perform pentests on a strike carrier is 1.

I'll save your time with these computations: the result is 1. Regardless of how huge the Universe is. And this is something AATIP already concluded, and a conclusion you don't need a budget of $22 million to draw.

It takes two minutes to find out were you to visit marinetraffic.com and identify all vessels around the area where alleged UAPs were seen.

If you want your aliens to exist, better for you to try something different.

Other news emerge about next week's report ...

EXCLUSIVE: New classified report to Congress says only HALF of UFO sightings can be properly explained, leaving nearly 200 mysteries unsolved – as critics say investigators 'glossed over' unknown cases

The ODNI source was critical of their department's dossier, saying it glossed over the many intriguing and worrying unexplained cases 'They don't want to talk about this stuff, because they really, really don't know what the hell they are. That's the truth,' the source said

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: gippo888

The Daily Mail is the voice of Bigoted Britain for people of low intellect who generally hate foreigners unless they play for their particular football team. So I've no idea why someone is leaking stories like this to such a trach tabloid based in the UK.

We'll have to see for ourselves when the paper is published, rather than relying on an anonymous source quoted by a rather dubious media source.

But perhaps the point is that if a case remains unexplained, then what is there to talk about?

a reply to: mirageman

This is ufology, there are no certainties about anything ...
I do not understand why there are advances on a report that could disprove everything
I think there is too much anxiety ...
I'd like to know who the mysterious sources are