Author Topic: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations  (Read 12951 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
A few days ago, the New York Times broke a story about an incident in 2004 where 2 US naval jets encountered some object they couldn't identify or explain. The object displayed extraordinary mobility and speed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

Video footage:






News interviews:






So while trying to stay within the realm of rational analysis and speculation - what are the thoughts on what was observed? What conclusions can be drawn?

Could this all just be a hoax? Could it be an aircraft of another country? Or what about some high-performance American aircraft unfamiliar to the observers?

Even if the object doesn't fit the characteristics of known aircraft, are there any experimental or hypothetical vehicles which could behave this way? What might at least be the closest match?

Could it be a spacecraft?

Some notes:

In Video#1 above, we hear one observer state that the object is "rotating" and we see the object's profile change. He seems to be saying that the object is changing its orientation by pivoting on its axis in a way that doesn't conform to aerodynamic change of pitch & yaw.
Near the start of that video one observer says there are other objects visible on radar (ie. "a whole fleet of them")
The object appears to have a glowing halo around it. Would that be some mere optical artifact, or does it indicate something about the object?

At the end of Video#2, we see the object from its side, as it suddenly shoots to the left and out of view. It appears to have an elongated teardrop shape.

In Video#4 above, USN pilot David Fravor says that he saw something in the water, which the UFO was apparently hovering above.
If it was a foreign submarine, then wouldn't it have been detected by sonar networks near the California coast?
The encounter was supposed to have happened off the California coast, ~100 miles from San Diego.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2017 07:07 PM by sanman »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #1 on: 12/20/2017 07:11 PM »
I watched the videos, and it looked for all the world like a refraction effect of some kind.  Refraction and reflection events in the atmosphere, derived from all sorts of lighting and atmospheric conditions, can appear to be rock-steady, but as you approach a critical angle from which the refracted/reflected light no longer reflects back to you, the image appears to dart away to the side.  I've seen these kinds of odd effects in the sky, and in water, a number of times.

As to what exact sea and atmosphere state could cause such a thing, that, as a non-physicist, I can't tell you.  But I can imagine any number of odd things that the sea/air interface could pop up.  A waterspout that was intermittently pulling up seawater, then pulled up from the sea but held as a solid vortex in the air for several minutes?  That wouldn't look like a funnel, and it could generate radar returns.  And as the seawater boiled around, spun and suspended in the vortex, a complex set of interactions where larger drops break into small ones and then recombine, could cause all sorts of odd acceleration vector ghosts on those radar returns.

That's just the first natural explanation that popped into my mind.  I bet there are a bunch more, from transient clouds all the way to full mirage events.  Airline pilots see mirage images of faraway offshore oil rigs and even large coastal cities well out in/over the ocean, on occasion.  That may well be what happened here.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline TorenAltair

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #2 on: 12/20/2017 08:08 PM »
I think the reason they published these videos is to encourage pilots to report all strange things. Not because of Aliens but because of foreign aircraft of any kind. Often in the past new stuff was only found/detected by luck/coincidence. And if it's really the case that pilots no longer dare to report things because they are mocked then it is very understandable that they want to change this behaviour.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 982
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #3 on: 12/20/2017 08:09 PM »
Here is a recap of the incident from an alleged friend of the pilot interviewed above:
https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
If the report is to be believed, there were detections accross the spectrum by:

-SPY1 radar from a ship (repeatedly)
-Airborne radar on Hawkeye
-Visual by several crew
-F-18 radar
-F-18 FLIR

Now FLIR imagery is notoriously difficult to interpret (the previous UFO caught on FLIR turned out to be a liner, but the Chilean Navy was stuck on the case for a while before it released it to the public, see https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.t8306/)
The combined detection is however much more indicative of a solid object at the observed location.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #4 on: 12/20/2017 09:35 PM »
I don't know if this is related, but apparently there were some prominent sightings in Mexico around that time:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_sightings_in_Mexico#2004


There's some video that's been up for years, purporting to show UFO footage from June 2004, Guadalajara:



Those seem to look like balloons of some sort, but the date and location aren't that far away from this reported November 2004 US Navy jet encounter - and plus it's a whole bunch of lights. I wonder if, when the naval aviators felt they saw a "fleet" of UFOs, if they looked something like in that video.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #5 on: 12/21/2017 11:50 PM »
More interview segments:















Offline Andy DC

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #6 on: 12/21/2017 11:57 PM »
This should probably be moved to Entertainment. You don't want UFO wacky people invading NSF.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #7 on: 12/22/2017 04:51 PM »
A lot of this feels like a politician coming around to say "hey look, something shiny!" There's not enough detail in the released footage to come to a firm conclusion, and other technical details that would help corroborate and explain the incident are not available to the public. Releasing it to the press like this is, at the very least, a little bit strange.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2017 04:52 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #8 on: 12/22/2017 06:53 PM »
Well, it's the New York Times that broke the story, so you'd have to ask them about that.

I'm wondering about this claim of the US govt holding "alien alloys" or other exotic materials related to UFOs, which sounds weird, cliche and questionable.

Modern materials science has advanced to even include nano-engineered materials, so I'd imagine that just about any exotic material can be examined to determine its structure and properties. I can't imagine some material existing that modern science couldn't figure out through examination, even if it was degenerate matter.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-those-alien-alloys-in-the-new-york-times-ufo-story/



Another thing I wanted to ask - what is the best and most incontrovertible way to prove that a UFO is not a regular aircraft?
If we say that no exhaust is visible on FLIR - is that incontrovertible? Or are there some stealth aircraft which can totally conceal heat emissions for their exhaust?

Based on the reports of the 2004 incident, the vehicle was said have an "aura" or halo of some sort. What's the best way to record and analyze that? Presumably any aura would result from interaction between the UFO and our atmosphere - so could spectrographs reveal something if they were used?


If radar is fallible and can produce false readings, then are there data analysis techniques which can reveal which readings might be faulty and for what reason?
« Last Edit: 12/22/2017 07:52 PM by sanman »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #9 on: 12/23/2017 01:49 AM »
There's a sudden spate of UFO sightings tonight - I guess not everyone knows about SpaceX's launch schedule









« Last Edit: 12/23/2017 01:52 AM by sanman »

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #10 on: 12/23/2017 06:16 AM »
I have a funny feeling that for all unidentified flying objects, the sample size of people that can actually identify it is >1.  First (sometimes the hardest) step is to identify who can properly do the identification.  The wanted party may just intend to remain unidentified

In any case... Get your ass to NSF.  Best place I've ever been to learn about what's up.  There are wickedly wonderful things ahead.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #11 on: 12/23/2017 12:54 PM »
Regarding Video#1 from the OP, after re-watching it a number of times, it does look like it could be a mere bug/insect on the camera lens, protected under a clear cover/windshield. If you particularly watch the part where it's rotating, it looks consistent with the way a bug/insect might move while sitting on a lens.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3611
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #12 on: 12/23/2017 01:32 PM »
I only saw the "black saucer" version. It looked to me like some sort of lens flare where the oversaturated values become black.

Now I see a version where sometimes they occasionally show the inverse. So I don't even know which was correct. One is black with a bright aura. One is white with a dark aura .. in any case most of the shape definitely just looks like a 2d effect to me.

I didn't encounter any clips offering real journalism. I suspect that the story would suddenly become dull if any real journalism was applied. So of course it isn't applied.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #13 on: 12/23/2017 07:25 PM »
Now I see a version where sometimes they occasionally show the inverse. So I don't even know which was correct. One is black with a bright aura. One is white with a dark aura .. in any case most of the shape definitely just looks like a 2d effect to me.

FLIR allows you to invert between white = hot and black = hot at the flip of a switch for the pilot's convenience.

Offline Chris Bergin

When I saw this thread early on, I did think "Uh oh". Then last night happened, so it was pretty timely ;D

Offline deaville

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • UK
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #15 on: 12/25/2017 07:15 AM »
Carl Sagan dealt with this in the course of his 'Cosmos' series of programmes for television. One should remember his wise words about UFOs and alien visitations - "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof."
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until they speak.

Offline LaunchedIn68

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Deer Park, NY
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #16 on: 12/26/2017 02:57 PM »
Carl Sagan dealt with this in the course of his 'Cosmos' series of programmes for television. One should remember his wise words about UFOs and alien visitations - "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof."

So, if you or him were a member of an undiscovered tribe living in the jungle, cut off from all of the rest of humanity, and one day you saw an Airbus A380 fly over, what would you say to your tribe mates?  Now maybe more than one person saw the A380 but most didn't being cooking in the huts or out hunting.  The tribal elders say there are no other tribes, they would have arrived if they did.  So does the A380 not exist?  The members are human, but why can't they build one and not just spears and harnessing fire?

A "rational" discussion would concede all the possibilities involved.  I'm personally turned off by the "Armstrong saw an alien base on the moon" crowd, as I am by the rigidity of those on the other side "It was a bug on the lens"...SMH.  In the above posts, why is no one taking into account the Navy pilots observations.  Has anyone watched the video?  Take into account the whole picture.  The radar operator on the ship who called the jets up to investigate what he saw, the object then spotted on the surface which then shot up to the jets altitude.  Take into account the pilots description of the encounter, it wasn't just the FLIR video, so what about this "40 foot Tic Tac" that excellerated away at 50K MPH? 

Also, what is very important here is that the government insisted for 50 years that with the closing of it's investigation with Project Blue Book in 1969, it had NO interest in investigating aerial phenomena.  And now we know that wasn't true, as all these years there's been this secret Pentagon investigation.  Whose to say there's not another one now?

This news event just confirmed what I've thought about this topic all along.  There has been too many credible accounts over the years among the noise, some scientifically measureable, for the whole topic to be just be discredited and laughed off.  The Government knows that there have been unknown objects coming and going in and out of our airspace, which can be documented as such, and are interested in what might be the origin.  With the added caveat that the evidence shows there performance to be such, that they could not have originated on this planet.
"I want to build a spaceship, go to the moon, salvage all the junk that's up there, bring it back, sell it." - Harry Broderick

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #17 on: 12/26/2017 07:13 PM »
I find it more than a little frustrating that our military seems to be equipped with the same technology that walmart uses for its surveillance systems.  Much like alot of criminal cases, I think alot of this could be cleared up just by getting a good view of the subject.

Maybe "a bug on the lens" will become this generations weather balloon or swamp gas?
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #18 on: 12/26/2017 09:09 PM »
Maybe "a bug on the lens" will become this generations weather balloon or swamp gas?

Sure seems like it. It's a pretty bad explanation too, since lenses are sealed units to prevent contamination. The really good ones are made and maintained in clean-rooms.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #19 on: 12/26/2017 09:26 PM »
UFO's the best CIA gig ever, had the Soviets spend themselves out of existence. Its amazing how the gov. series of projects all start around the beginning of the cold war.  Funny how the CIA ends its  focus on UFO's in the early 90's.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6896
  • Likes Given: 4681
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #20 on: 12/26/2017 09:27 PM »
Look up Rocket Wasps on Facebook  ... sealed lenses or not, bugs do get in pictures.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/246228265738245/
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #21 on: 12/26/2017 09:36 PM »
Look up Rocket Wasps on Facebook  ... sealed lenses or not, bugs do get in pictures.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/246228265738245/

Any alternate sources? I try to avoid Facebook when I can  :P

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6896
  • Likes Given: 4681
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #22 on: 12/26/2017 09:48 PM »
Look up Rocket Wasps on Facebook  ... sealed lenses or not, bugs do get in pictures.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/246228265738245/

Any alternate sources? I try to avoid Facebook when I can  :P
Group's moderated by The Roadie, you'll be OK. 

My point was merely that bugs in pictures of rocketish things are not at all uncommon.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #23 on: 12/26/2017 09:56 PM »
Group's moderated by The Roadie, you'll be OK. 

My point was merely that bugs in pictures of rocketish things are not at all uncommon.

I don't have a Facebook account. I intend to keep it that way.  ;)

Any examples of insects in infrared systems?

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #24 on: 12/27/2017 12:11 AM »
Maybe an example of one on an airborne reconnaissance camera would be more relevant.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6896
  • Likes Given: 4681
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #25 on: 12/27/2017 01:01 PM »
Maybe an example of one on an airborne reconnaissance camera would be more relevant.

(Fan:off - Mod:on)

Not convinced this *thread* is relevant after that long ranty post about how the government surely is hiding something.  See what you can do to fix that by posting actually relevant, meaningful, non-conspiracy-theory things...
« Last Edit: 12/27/2017 01:03 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #26 on: 12/27/2017 02:23 PM »
Maybe an example of one on an airborne reconnaissance camera would be more relevant.

(Fan:off - Mod:on)

Not convinced this *thread* is relevant after that long ranty post about how the government surely is hiding something.  See what you can do to fix that by posting actually relevant, meaningful, non-conspiracy-theory things...

Especially when every bit of "proof" of alien spaceships that gets trotted out is of inferior resolution and/or general quality, shows very little detail, and depends only on verbal context (which can be skewed, either accidentally or on purpose) to try and prove its point.  I am reminded of all these "popular" TV shows these days about ghosts and Bigfoot, which have all these IR-camera sequences with people saying "Wow, look!" and the camera always pans over and just misses whatever was supposedly just seen or heard.  Obvious fake, scripted BS, but it pulls in the super-gullible... who are the people being targeted by these programs.

And who are also the people being targeted by these skewed news reports.  Running "eyewitness" reports of incidents that happened more than a dozen years ago.  Right.

Quick -- describe a traumatic Christmas day incident from 15 years ago.  In detail.  I guarantee you are not recalling the facts -- just how your experience hit you emotionally.  You'd be lucky to correctly identify the individuals involved, much less be able to remember the supposed details these "eyewitnesses" are spouting.

Of course, being an "eyewitness" to such a thing has no value at all -- until it gets you on NATIONAL TELEVISION.  At which point, your memories are encouraged to become lurid and sensationalistic, so they are worthwhile enough to get you your promised fifteen minutes on NATIONAL TELEVISION.  (You can see what motivates such "eyewitnesses" -- and it ain't making sure the story gets told correctly.  Or else they would have been on NATIONAL TELEVISION more than a dozen years ago, while their memories were still fresh...)

Add to that the fact that the UFO crowd rejects, as a whole, all rational thinking and explanations.  I will reference the many, many posts throughout cyberspace about the Iridium Next Four launch's contrail with such messages as "SpaceX's lame explanations are BS, THIS IS A UFO AND NOW HOW ARE THEY GONNA HIDE THE TRUTH???!!!"  As much as I appreciate the OP's desire to start a rational discussion about the subject, I'm not sure it's possible.  There is a much higher percentage of irrational people who wish to toss in their opinions about this subject than about most every other subject out there.  It's awfully hard to weed out the irrational posts in such a thread.

I'd say all this argues for locking it.  I wouldn't just pull it, though.  Leave it out, but locked, to illustrate that such a rational discussion just doesn't appear possible, in the current public environment... :(
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #27 on: 12/27/2017 08:08 PM »
Maybe an example of one on an airborne reconnaissance camera would be more relevant.

(Fan:off - Mod:on)

Not convinced this *thread* is relevant after that long ranty post about how the government surely is hiding something.  See what you can do to fix that by posting actually relevant, meaningful, non-conspiracy-theory things...

Alright - so given that there have been so many alleged sightings of UFOs with evidence that seems ambiguous at best, what kind of technologies/methodologies might be best to clarify and resolve ambiguity in future sightings which are inevitably bound to occur in the future?

There are already legitimate projects like SETI which seek evidence of life elsewhere in the distant universe, in the form of intelligent radio signals. There's no guarantee that such signals will be found, but efforts are nevertheless underway.

Similarly, there have already been efforts to look for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation by investigating sightings - but there hasn't yet been any irrefutable proof turned up yet.

Based on what we know, what would be the best chance of finding solid/irrefutable proof of extraterrestrial activity or spacecraft, if any exist?

Is it a matter of simply improving camera and/or radar technology?
Are there any other detection methods that might be brought to bear?

Recently I'd been reading about the new development efforts for "Quantum Radar" - ie. use of multiple entangled photon emission streams to greatly improve radar imaging by measuring local light field information to interpolate details about an object. Could Quantum Radar enable long-distance detection and imaging of UFOs to resolve their ambiguous nature?

If "alien spacecraft" are by definition characterized as vehicles observed to be operating beyond conventional engineering physics (eg. no exhaust, maneuvering non-aerodynamically), then what types of technology and what telltale traces of it should we be trying pick out?
Gravity sensors are routinely used by survey aircraft to uncover mineral deposits and other hidden features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry
Could these or something like them be used to detect some kind of unconventional propulsion physics?
Also, if aliens in the vicinity of Earth presumably communicate with each other, and whereas we've not yet detected any noticeable activity on conventional radio frequencies, what other useful things should we be looking at that might bring any communication to light?

AI has been brought to bear to in watching the skies and parsing through large volumes of data generated from telescopes, including even spacecraft like Kepler, finding pattern correlations that would escape human notice. Could AI be used to discern something we human beings have been unable to out of all the various seemingly random UFO sightings?

Also, we're increasingly a planet full of people constantly carrying portable cellphone/camera devices with us at all times, which have been collectively described as a sort of sensor network, so that all kinds of sudden random events are captured and shared with the rest of the world. Sudden meteor events or other phenomena are routinely recorded and put up on the internet.
Most standard cellphone cameras are even able to pick up the infrared spectrum not visible to our eyes (if you aim your TV remote at your eyes while looking into it, you won't see anything, but if you aim it at your cellphone camera while pushing buttons, it will pick up the flashes)
Could simple inexpensive enhancements to cellphone technology provide critical information in resolving what might otherwise be ambiguous sightings?

Lastly, will spacefaringness and development of associated technologies help to solve the UFO mystery?
When man ventured out into the oceans, there were many encounters with the bizarre and the unfamiliar, but these eventually passed from lore into explainable things. Will an increased human presence beyond Earth - some people in the "new space" industry want us to have "millions of people living and working in outer space" - then give us greater or lesser clarity on UFO phenomena?
« Last Edit: 12/27/2017 08:19 PM by sanman »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #28 on: 12/27/2017 08:18 PM »
We all know that discussions about the subject tends to be emotionally charged. I don't know what good is meant to come about discussing why that's the way it is, though.  :-\

Regarding bugs in lenses, I concede that they can in fact make their way in. Are there any examples of infrared systems with insects in them?
« Last Edit: 12/27/2017 08:21 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline missinglink

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #29 on: 12/27/2017 10:06 PM »
On occasion, I will indulge in a guilty pleasure and head on over to Youtube to wallow in the stark, raving madness emitted by the UFO-vid commenters. Whatever my own shortcomings, I invariably feel better about myself afterward. This NSF thread, however, does not serve that purpose, and I'm not sure what else it could be useful for.

Numerous reports and studies -- academic and government -- have analyzed UFO sightings and their conclusions are always the same:
- natural phenomena (misinterpreted)
- man-made phenomena (misinterpreted)
- hoaxes and frauds
- a very small number of uncategorized sightings due to lack of conclusive data

These findings were widely reported in the media. Without checking to make sure, I confidently predict that these reports and studies are cited and linked on Wikipedia, because this is the kind of thing that WP is good at. Politicians, on the other hand, are good at wasting taxpayer funds. If a Nevada senator considers pouring tens of millions of dollars down the drain to investigate UFOs a good use of resources, then so be it. There are more egregious examples of mis-spending.

On NSF, what I'd prefer to see instead is a thread on old magazine cover art showing buxom females in various stages of undress beset by bug-eyed space alien monsters. Not that I expect to get it  :P

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #30 on: 12/27/2017 10:14 PM »
What's the most plausible explanation for the 2004 Nimitz incident?
(and please don't mention time-travel to 1941)  :P

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #31 on: 12/27/2017 10:28 PM »
What's the most plausible explanation for the 2004 Nimitz incident?

The Final Countd-

(and please don't mention time-travel to 1941)  :P

Aw. :(

The video itself corroborates to an unidentified aircraft. What's missing is video corroboration of the most extraordinary claims, which makes them unreliable, at best. I don't think there's any firm conclusion we can draw about the nature of the aircraft itself, with the most reasonable explanation, based on the available footage, being a terrestrial aircraft.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 982
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #32 on: 12/28/2017 10:49 AM »
Numerous reports and studies -- academic and government -- have analyzed UFO sightings and their conclusions are always the same:
- natural phenomena (misinterpreted)
- man-made phenomena (misinterpreted)
- hoaxes and frauds
- a very small number of uncategorized sightings due to lack of conclusive data

This is factually wrong. See the statistics of the unidentified aerospatial phenomena group of the French Space Agency:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnes-geipan.fr%2F%3Fid%3D196&edit-text=&act=url

Quote
Category A:Perfectly Identified Phenomena
20%

Category B: Probably Identified Phenomena
39%

category C: Non-Phenomena (lack of data)
34%

Category D: Unidentified Phenomena (after investigation)
7%

Note the number of category D cases has been divided by 3 in recent years due to better investigative methods. However there remains something like 3 cases/year of unexplained aerospatial phenomena in France, that the agency cannot attribute to a lack of data. These case probably include unknown exotic atmospheric phenomena (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning, which are a relatively recent discovery). They could also include other stuff. The Nimitz case would argue for a solid object (moving, repeatedly detected radar signatures across multiple wavelength, correlated with infrared and visual detections).

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 982
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #33 on: 12/28/2017 11:35 AM »

Alright - so given that there have been so many alleged sightings of UFOs with evidence that seems ambiguous at best, what kind of technologies/methodologies might be best to clarify and resolve ambiguity in future sightings which are inevitably bound to occur in the future?

I would argue it's the same as any detection problem. You want a detection system that is sensitive (ie detects what you are looking for) and specific (it does not detect anything else). Since we don't know what we are looking for, there is not much we can say about the sensitivity part.

For the specificity part however, you want to have a false positive rate so low that if you have a detection, you can be confident it's not a false positive. That means having 0 false positives during you observation time, at some level of certainty. So you have to set up measurement systems, and filter those measurement to get rid of false detections. That could be done using simple rules, to take into account only observations that:
- are made by different instruments, to get rid of single instrument malfunctions
- are made by different models of instruments, to get rid of design issues common to a class of instruments
- are reported by trustworthy people who have a reputation to lose if they fake observations

That would filter out a lot of noise, but leaves a lot of atmospheric/astronomical phenomena in the result (rocket plumes for the recent falcon launch would pass the filter for instance). So if you are interested in artificial objects, you may want to restrict more to observation that:
- are precisely localized (through ranging or triangulation), to get rid of astronomical observations
- are made using several physical phenomena (for instance using very different wavelengths)
- are mobile and have high speed (over the maximum speed of winds for instance), to get rid of atmospheric phenomena carried over by wind
- are resolved (ie a shape can be distinguished)

That kind of rules leave a lot of interesting observations on the side (the Chilean Helicopter now-identified "UFO" would not pass because it's single-sensor), but the ones that do pass would be worthy of consideration. However I'm sure they can be improved, all you have to do is find a false positive that passes though the filters to prove it's not perfect.

Offline deaville

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • UK
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #34 on: 12/28/2017 12:42 PM »

So, if you or him were a member of an undiscovered tribe living in the jungle, cut off from all of the rest of humanity, and one day you saw an Airbus A380 fly over, what would you say to your tribe mates?  Now maybe more than one person saw the A380 but most didn't being cooking in the huts or out hunting.  The tribal elders say there are no other tribes, they would have arrived if they did.  So does the A380 not exist?  The members are human, but why can't they build one and not just spears and harnessing fire?


You miss the point Sagan was making. Might I suggest you watch this -

Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until they speak.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9217
  • UK
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 177
UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #35 on: 03/09/2018 09:21 PM »
This new article from the Washington Post seems appropriate to this thread.

The military keeps encountering UFOs. Why doesn’t the Pentagon care?

Quote
We have no idea what’s behind these weird incidents because we’re not investigating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-military-keeps-encountering-ufos-why-doesnt-the-pentagon-care/2018/03/09/242c125c-22ee-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.9c97a5a7f273

I am only posting this because of the credentials of the article’s author.

Mind you it looks like a Pelican to me!
« Last Edit: 03/09/2018 09:32 PM by Star One »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #36 on: 03/09/2018 09:55 PM »
I hadn't heard about the incident over Oregon (let alone the encounters by the Navy over the Pacific).

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4255
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1060
  • Likes Given: 1997
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #37 on: 03/09/2018 10:15 PM »
Group's moderated by The Roadie, you'll be OK. 

My point was merely that bugs in pictures of rocketish things are not at all uncommon.

I don't have a Facebook account. I intend to keep it that way.  ;)

Any examples of insects in infrared systems?
I don't blame you. I only have a Facebook page to keep in touch with some far-flung relatives and friends. But on Farcebook; Every single page on space exploration and NASA in particular is brutally and relentlessly trolled by flat earthers, hoaxtards and religious nuts. Same reason I don't put my videos on YouTube. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all - but I have become convinced that this is a well-organized campaign :'(

Now; as for UFO's - As a kid I used to almost religiously pray that I'd see one up close. The closest thing I've come to seeing one is three weeks ago. I was taking a brisk walk near midnight. It was an absolutely clear night and a couple streetlights were blown, so my view of the night sky was good in places. I had my earbuds in, hi-viz vest on and I was frequently scanning the sky as I walked. At 11:57pm exactly (I checked my phone moments later), there was a quartet of semi-bright, reddish flashes almost directly overhead. They were in a roughly triangular pattern and happened over a period of about 5 seconds. The final one was a second or two later and moving quickly away from where the others had happened moments before. This was not low altitude - my impression was something either very high altitude or in space itself. I have been watching the sky for most of my 52 years of life and have never seen anything remotely like that. Spooky...
« Last Edit: 03/10/2018 01:40 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4255
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1060
  • Likes Given: 1997
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #38 on: 03/09/2018 10:20 PM »
...When I got home; I checked 'Heavens-above.com/' and there were no visible spacecraft, satellites or iridium flashes scheduled to pass over Auckland during that time period.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #39 on: 03/10/2018 09:13 AM »
Maybe "a bug on the lens" will become this generations weather balloon or swamp gas?

Sure seems like it. It's a pretty bad explanation too, since lenses are sealed units to prevent contamination. The really good ones are made and maintained in clean-rooms.

Any camera has to have at least one exposed surface that's susceptible to bugs and other contamination. A sealed lens reduces the number of exposed surfaces, but can't eliminate the last one.

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #40 on: 03/10/2018 09:18 AM »
You miss the point Sagan was making. Might I suggest you watch this -


I think the inimitable Carl Sagan said everything there is to say on "UFOs" and nothing has changed since. The whole field really says more about human psychology and the limits of our perception, than anything else. That is a pity, because there are a lot of interesting but rare real phenomena that could be missed, such as earth grazing meteors, high altitude lightning, and quite possibly other unknown effects.

It's worth noting that "a light" is the absolute minimum information for us to to detect if "something" is there at all. That light could be generated by the object or reflected, or not actually represent a solid object at all. Size, shape and distance are all unknowns. Given the lack of information, imaginations run rampant. There are credible, sober people who have misidentified objects such as Venus and the Moon as UFOs, so unfortunately the bar for quality of reporting is set very low.

There is an interesting tale of a parachutist who appeared to capture a falling meteorite on camera. This was investigated and seemed to be confirmed. That led to many headlines such as "Meteorite narrowly misses Norwegian skydiver"[1].

However, a large body of skeptics suggested that the "meteorite" was actually a pebble that was inside the parachute and released when it opened. That explanation in the end was deemed more plausible. [2]

So even when we have good video evidence, and a credible eyewitness, we have trouble identifying whether a falling object is a meteorite or just a common pebble, how can we expect to make reliable conclusions of extraterrestrial presence from fuzzy video images, no matter how many? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10742854/Meteorite-narrowly-misses-Norwegian-skydiver.html
[2] http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1497

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9217
  • UK
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 177
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #41 on: 03/10/2018 09:24 AM »
You miss the point Sagan was making. Might I suggest you watch this -


I think the inimitable Carl Sagan said everything there is to say on "UFOs" and nothing has changed since. The whole field really says more about human psychology and the limits of our perception, than anything else. That is a pity, because there are a lot of interesting but rare real phenomena that could be missed, such as earth grazing meteors, high altitude lightning, and quite possibly other unknown effects.

It's worth noting that "a light" is the absolute minimum information for us to to detect if "something" is there at all. That light could be generated by the object or reflected, or not actually represent a solid object at all. Size, shape and distance are all unknowns. Given the lack of information, imaginations run rampant. There are credible, sober people who have misidentified objects such as Venus and the Moon as UFOs, so unfortunately the bar for quality of reporting is set very low.

There is an interesting tale of a parachutist who appeared to capture a falling meteorite on camera. This was investigated and seemed to be confirmed. That led to many headlines such as "Meteorite narrowly misses Norwegian skydiver"[1].

However, a large body of skeptics suggested that the "meteorite" was actually a pebble that was inside the parachute and released when it opened. That explanation in the end was deemed more plausible. [2]

So even when we have good video evidence, and a credible eyewitness, we have trouble identifying whether a falling object is a meteorite or just a common pebble, how can we expect to make reliable conclusions of extraterrestrial presence from fuzzy video images, no matter how many? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10742854/Meteorite-narrowly-misses-Norwegian-skydiver.html
[2] http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1497

I would add though that some sceptics are just as bad as true believers, being just as inflexible of mind and belief.

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #42 on: 03/10/2018 10:11 AM »
I would add though that some sceptics are just as bad as true believers, being just as inflexible of mind and belief.

Unfortunately, that is the type of sentiment I often see on "Free Energy/Perpetual Motion" forums to dismiss skeptics who say that PM is impossible, due to "laws of physics". Believing in scientific laws is not being "as bad" as true believers , nor is requiring hard evidence for extraordinary claims.

So unless you are careful about how you say it, you are dangerously close to saying belief in "woo" theories has some equivalence to belief in scientific knowledge, which is quite definitely not the case. A lack of flexibility in mind and belief has never really been a problem, since humans excel at those. The scientific method is the one thing that constrains those tendencies to discover knowledge that is provably true.

I am quite inflexible when it comes to laws such as the conservation of energy, to the point where it can be seen as dogmatic. However, that does not even slightly make me "as bad" as people who believe in fairies.

I am sorry to say that there will need to be considerably better evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth than the suggestion that I need to be more open-minded about fuzzy blobs.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Motown
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #43 on: 03/10/2018 10:42 AM »
... there will need to be considerably better evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth than the suggestion that I need to be more open-minded about fuzzy blobs.

Now that an iPhone has 1/8000 sec shutter, I openmindedly say aliens are inherently fuzzy as nothing was ever captured, on film or CCD, that was not fuzzy.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9217
  • UK
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 177
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #44 on: 03/10/2018 10:55 AM »
I would add though that some sceptics are just as bad as true believers, being just as inflexible of mind and belief.

Unfortunately, that is the type of sentiment I often see on "Free Energy/Perpetual Motion" forums to dismiss skeptics who say that PM is impossible, due to "laws of physics". Believing in scientific laws is not being "as bad" as true believers , nor is requiring hard evidence for extraordinary claims.

So unless you are careful about how you say it, you are dangerously close to saying belief in "woo" theories has some equivalence to belief in scientific knowledge, which is quite definitely not the case. A lack of flexibility in mind and belief has never really been a problem, since humans excel at those. The scientific method is the one thing that constrains those tendencies to discover knowledge that is provably true.

I am quite inflexible when it comes to laws such as the conservation of energy, to the point where it can be seen as dogmatic. However, that does not even slightly make me "as bad" as people who believe in fairies.

I am sorry to say that there will need to be considerably better evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth than the suggestion that I need to be more open-minded about fuzzy blobs.

I am sure many were saying the same about plate tectonics back in the day until proven wrong. After all science is not something external to humans, like some divine power, but comes from us and is therefore subject to the same issues for example of sexism and racism as any other area of human endeavour. History is after all littered with missed discoveries and insights, purely due to the race and/or gender of the scientist involved. So any mention of dogma always concerns me in connection with science.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #45 on: 03/14/2018 12:20 AM »
Some possible very pausible explanations:

- Chinese EM-Drive craft
- North Korean aircraft using Rossi's E-Cat as a power source
- Ancient Indian Vimanas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana)
- Hermes/Mercury
- Nibiru
- some unknown artifact on the dome of the Flat Earth
- the Shrike, sent back from the distant future by the Techno-Core
- Doc and Marty aboard the DeLorean


-------------------------------------------

in a more serious note, even if it's a "spaceship", why should it be aliens? Why not humans from the future? If aliens, I would say probably robot machines. That would make sense in a relativistic universe where FTL is not possible.

Seed the galaxy with wafer chips like the Starshot project. But these advanced wafer ships can break arriving at destination and land on asteroids, and then begin building copies of itself, and then the copies build bigger "ships" and they stay dormant until be awakened by the advent of some technological civization (maybe detection of nuclear detonations).


They begin researching and sending data back to the Dyson Sphere where their ancient creators live, hundreds or thousands of LY away, by using pre-positioned ships at the local star's gravitational focus. By using the gravitational focus of thousands of stars, they have in effect "galactic broadband" using very low power.

Robot ships would explain crazy maneuvers the craft can make, as well as the lack of contact (they are not here to contact us, but to send data to their "parents"... data that will take a thousand years to reach their star of origin)


--------------------

or perhaps, an insect on the lens.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6896
  • Likes Given: 4681
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #46 on: 03/14/2018 12:50 AM »

On NSF, what I'd prefer to see instead is a thread on old magazine cover art showing buxom females in various stages of undress beset by bug-eyed space alien monsters. Not that I expect to get it  :P
You want Bad Bobby Book Covers, on FB  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1592652410768840/
The thrilling story of Bobby Lousma, Jack Lousma's[1] evil twin brother and his many adventures with secret DynaSoar, Titan, Buran, Shuttle, etc etc missions as well as the nefarious buxom spies sent to stop him. Etc.



I don't blame you. I only have a Facebook page to keep in touch with some far-flung relatives and friends. But on Farcebook; Every single page on space exploration and NASA in particular is brutally and relentlessly trolled by flat earthers, hoaxtards and religious nuts. Same reason I don't put my videos on YouTube. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all - but I have become convinced that this is a well-organized campaign :'(

You should check out  https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/ the SpaceX group. Truly superb moderation[2].  May never be quite up to NSF standards but none of that sort of nonsense lasts long at all.

1 - not a real brother in all 50 states.
2 - well, it was... I just got appointed moderator there so it's sure to go down the tubes now.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #47 on: 03/14/2018 03:04 AM »
or perhaps, an insect on the lens.

If nothing else, the cold object racing above the sea doesn't fit the bill since the FLIR system has to turn hard to track it and get a lock.  ;)

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #48 on: 03/14/2018 03:22 AM »
I researched a lot about UFOs around 10 years ago. The whole topic gets a distorted perception by a lot of people because of all the nonsense that people have put forward, however there are a core group of cases that are compelling.

There are many dozens, possibly even hundreds of these cases where mysterious objects were encountered by pilots and they displayed rates of acceleration not possible for known human technology. These were not bugs or refraction effects. They had radar locks etc, on the objects. They were clearly metallic in nature.

NICAP was an org that collected a lot of reports like this decades ago.

As to what they are, I have no idea. Aliens is clearly not the only possibility, but it is something very unusual.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 03:23 AM by spacetraveler »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #49 on: 03/14/2018 03:11 PM »
Just embedding the newly released 3rd video for reference:




So I wonder if the flight personnel are observing the UFO through the same FLIR camera, or more directly through their cockpit glass? This one doesn't seem to look like an optical illusion.

If it shows as cold on the FLIR, then that seems to say that there's no conventional exhaust or powerplant putting out heat. And yet moving so fast, it has to be doing it under power of some sort. It's too bad these sensors aren't augmented to detect radioactive emissions. If there was something radioactive flying out there, then it's either Putin's new cruise missile or else something more bizarre.

In theory, should it be possible to conceal/absorb all emissions from a radioactive power source? Neutrons are notoriously slippery and impossible to stop, and even if the power source was aneutronic, there would still be stray emissions from neutron byproducts.




Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9217
  • UK
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 177
UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #50 on: 03/14/2018 04:48 PM »
This is the explanation I saw for the above video on an aviation forum.

“I don't, but the IRST21 was being tested at the same time, and was carried on a different station than the ATFLIR, so they might have had both running, using the ATFLIR as a control type system. It would have been tested off the East Coast, at least some of the tests would have been in an F-18F, allowing the back seat pilot to control the system, and it would have been tested against multiple types of targets including UAVs.

A system test fits everything about the video significantly better than an alien spaceship as many are suggesting. It's also a better fit than an aircraft from another nation. The pilots wouldn't necessarily be able to identify the type of UAV used, because it wouldn't be used for much beyond targeting and possibly live fire situations.”

And here’s further debunking of the video here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyII/comments/840ecy/buckle_up_boys_youre_about_to_get_learnt_a_little/
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 04:50 PM by Star One »

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #51 on: 03/14/2018 10:46 PM »
FWIW, Dave Fravor was featured in the PBS mini-series Carrier, about life on the USS Nimitz. http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/the_crew.htm

Based on the show and comments made on another pilot forum by pilots who knew him, he's Sierra Hotel pilot, can it would take a lot to fool him.

David Fravor
Rank: CDR

 Air Wing: VMFA-232
 David Fravor has served for 22 years in the Navy and two in the Marines. He has participated in five deployments. During the deployment featured in CARRIER, he was commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 41 (VFA-41), also known as “The Black Aces.” Currently, he works in California for Fidelity Technologies as a simulator instructor, teaching new pilots how to fly the F/A-18. He is a native of Ohio.
 
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 10:50 PM by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3611
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #52 on: 03/25/2018 09:44 AM »
Some guy discussing/debunking the footage here. (IR, lens flare, gimbal)
I don't have any real experience but sounded plausible and straightforward to me.

https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 941
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #53 on: 03/25/2018 09:49 AM »


swamp gas reflected the light of planet Venus... (flaaaash)
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #54 on: 04/28/2018 12:17 AM »
New video that shows there are billions of intelligent civilizations in the Universe
Detailed calculation of number of intelligent civilizations in Universe and Milky Way. Based on latest discoveries and pure logic. Calculated with mathematical strictness. After seeing this film no one can deny existence of alien civilizations. In second part of the film it is explained why, in spite of enormous number of intelligent civilizations, there hasn't been any contact with them, yet.


Offline Space Dingus

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #55 on: 04/28/2018 02:39 AM »
New video that shows there are billions of intelligent civilizations in the Universe
Detailed calculation of number of intelligent civilizations in Universe and Milky Way. Based on latest discoveries and pure logic. Calculated with mathematical strictness. After seeing this film no one can deny existence of alien civilizations. In second part of the film it is explained why, in spite of enormous number of intelligent civilizations, there hasn't been any contact with them, yet.




I'm passingly familiar with the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation but there's one or two numbers here that I'm not sure I understand.

 Number of planets in habitable zone that develop basic life during their existence. For which they give a "conservative" answer of 1 out of 20.  How do we really know that? The real number could be 1 out of a billion. Or less. Subsequently, intelligent life might be stupendously rare. We have no idea. It's entirely possible humans are the only intelligent life to have ever developed in the Milky Way.

Offline WindyCity

We need more evidence. As you point out, a sample size of 1 doesn't allow for informed speculation. All that our existence proves is that intelligent life is possible, but nothing about its prevalence. If life elsewhere in the cosmos were detected (on Mars or on the moons of our local gas giants or in the spectra of exoplanets) that would increase the probability of there being alien intelligent life.

My opinion is that intelligent species are likely to be relatively short-lived because of the hazards that they pose to their own existence. We humans have only been dumb lucky that a thermonuclear war hasn't take place during the last half century that caused vast devastation and possible extinction. (We've come close a number of times.) Now we're facing another anthropogenic existential crisis in climate change.

Humans may be too smart for their own good. It seems reasonable to think that civilizations elsewhere in the universe would face similar self-inflicted problems. A race of machines that are able to adapt quickly to environmental change would probably have a better chance of surviving over great spans of time.

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #57 on: 04/28/2018 07:34 PM »
New video that shows there are billions of intelligent civilizations in the Universe
Detailed calculation of number of intelligent civilizations in Universe and Milky Way. Based on latest discoveries and pure logic. Calculated with mathematical strictness. After seeing this film no one can deny existence of alien civilizations. In second part of the film it is explained why, in spite of enormous number of intelligent civilizations, there hasn't been any contact with them, yet.




I'm passingly familiar with the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation but there's one or two numbers here that I'm not sure I understand.

 Number of planets in habitable zone that develop basic life during their existence. For which they give a "conservative" answer of 1 out of 20.  How do we really know that? The real number could be 1 out of a billion. Or less. Subsequently, intelligent life might be stupendously rare. We have no idea. It's entirely possible humans are the only intelligent life to have ever developed in the Milky Way.
Well, obviously we have to make assumptions/estimates otherwise calculation would be impossible. If we DO know that in our solar system there are 2 planets in habitable zone and life developed on one-Earth (one out of two), and we have to make an assumption why would it be 1 out of billion Why not 1/2 Why not 1 out of 1 In that light 1 out of 20 is very conservative to me. BTW I made the film.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 07:37 PM by adis »

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3307
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #58 on: 04/28/2018 11:10 PM »
BTW I made the film.
It would be good to state that up front when posting. Since the video is mostly text, it might also be good to just summarize the argument without making us sit through 15 minutes of music and visuals. (I admit I only skimmed it)

Quote
If we DO know that in our solar system there are 2 planets in habitable zone and life developed on one-Earth (one out of two), and we have to make an assumption why would it be 1 out of billion Why not 1/2 Why not 1 out of 1 In that light 1 out of 20 is very conservative to me.
We know for certain the solar system isn't typical. Most stars are M dwarfs, and it's unclear (and hotly debated) whether their evolution is compatible with life. Even among sun-like stars, many systems have wildly different planetary architectures which may or may not be conducive to habitability. The impacts of other factors like multiple star systems, metallicity, galactic environment and so on are unclear.

If you take an optimistic view of all those factors, 1:20 isn't unreasonable. If life actually requires something very similar to our solar system, then the fraction must be much smaller. We just don't know.

edit:
The Fermi Paradox and Drake equation have been discussed extensively on the forum. The discussions tend to go in circles, because hard numbers are in short supply.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 11:13 PM by hop »

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #59 on: 04/28/2018 11:12 PM »
New video that shows there are billions of intelligent civilizations in the Universe
Detailed calculation of number of intelligent civilizations in Universe and Milky Way. Based on latest discoveries and pure logic. Calculated with mathematical strictness. After seeing this film no one can deny existence of alien civilizations. In second part of the film it is explained why, in spite of enormous number of intelligent civilizations, there hasn't been any contact with them, yet.



I'm passingly familiar with the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation but there's one or two numbers here that I'm not sure I understand.

 Number of planets in habitable zone that develop basic life during their existence. For which they give a "conservative" answer of 1 out of 20.  How do we really know that? The real number could be 1 out of a billion. Or less. Subsequently, intelligent life might be stupendously rare. We have no idea. It's entirely possible humans are the only intelligent life to have ever developed in the Milky Way.
Well, obviously we have to make assumptions/estimates otherwise calculation would be impossible. If we DO know that in our solar system there are 2 planets in habitable zone and life developed on one-Earth (one out of two), and we have to make an assumption why would it be 1 out of billion Why not 1/2 Why not 1 out of 1 In that light 1 out of 20 is very conservative to me. BTW I made the film.
Sure, we know for certain that one out of two habitable-zone planets in this solar system developed life. But the major problem is that this is NOT a random statistical sample because we, the observers, inhabit Earth. This is what is often called anthropic bias.

So 1 out of 20 may be very conservative, or it may be wildly optimistic. We don't really know due to this anthropic bias.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 11:13 PM by Mondagun »

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #60 on: 04/29/2018 04:57 PM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #61 on: 04/29/2018 10:31 PM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.
That doesn't really help to establish the probability number with any real confidence. Firstly, why do you only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? Why do you ignore the other scientists that think it's ~0%? And secondly, as far as I know there are very few to none scientists who claim that they have conclusively proven the probability number. They normally acknowledge that any probability number given should be interpreted as a working hypothesis.

Quote
Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
The fact that life developed on Earth is not under dispute. The topic of dispute is whether the rate of life development within our own solar system can be generalized to the entire universe. Or to put it in statistical terms: is our sample (the solar system) representative for the population (the universe)? Unfortunately we don't really know whether this is the case, because of inevitable selection bias. The sample that we can observe was always going to contain a planet that developed life, even in case of a universe where the chance of a planet developing life is 1 in 100 billion, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform this statistical test due to our non-existence. That is anthropic bias in a nutshell.

I'm not arguing that life in the universe must be rare, nor am I arguing that it must be abundant. All I'm saying here is that we don't have enough data (yet) to know for sure which.

I would recommend reading the book Anthropic Bias.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2018 10:42 PM by Mondagun »

Online rakaydos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #62 on: 04/30/2018 05:08 AM »
Science is never going to have enough evidence to conclude life exists outside of Earth.  The problem is that there is no way to know what life is.  There is only one data point and will be absent of the information for cross validation. 

So science is the wrong approach.

An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?

No way science is going to help.  Science does have limitations. 

We’re more likely to find all the new life forms to ever hope to find on earth.  Perhaps realize that some creatures are on Earth and have no known explanation for their origin based on scientific principles.  That is where to look.  Not far... near.  Because there is where there actually is information!
I disagree. It is possible to design probes and telescopes capable of searching other systems of signs of life. A gravlensing observatory 1000 AU from sol could observe another star's enviros at basically any distance from sol, at a level of detail only limited by the resolution of the sensors at 1000 AU to the Einstein ring projected around Sol by grav lensing. Project starshot, on the other hand, is an attempt to send actual sensors across interstellar distances and transmit data back for future super-recievers to pick up.

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #63 on: 04/30/2018 11:52 AM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.
That doesn't really help to establish the probability number with any real confidence. Firstly, why do you only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? Why do you ignore the other scientists that think it's ~0%? And secondly, as far as I know there are very few to none scientists who claim that they have conclusively proven the probability number. They normally acknowledge that any probability number given should be interpreted as a working hypothesis.

Quote
Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
The fact that life developed on Earth is not under dispute. The topic of dispute is whether the rate of life development within our own solar system can be generalized to the entire universe. Or to put it in statistical terms: is our sample (the solar system) representative for the population (the universe)? Unfortunately we don't really know whether this is the case, because of inevitable selection bias. The sample that we can observe was always going to contain a planet that developed life, even in case of a universe where the chance of a planet developing life is 1 in 100 billion, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform this statistical test due to our non-existence. That is anthropic bias in a nutshell.

I'm not arguing that life in the universe must be rare, nor am I arguing that it must be abundant. All I'm saying here is that we don't have enough data (yet) to know for sure which.

I would recommend reading the book Anthropic Bias.
And where exactly in my film or my post have you found  that I only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? And ignore other opinions? Actually in my film I estimated the number at 1/20 exactly to avoid any bias and NOT to push anything to prove my point at any cost. If I considered equally scientists/opinions that think number is 0 and that it is 100% I would go with 0,5 or 50%. But I used 1/20 exactly to be conservative or objective and not to promote my personal point of view (which is much closer to 100%).
Sorry but (in other post) I don't find any analogy with  "trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car..." because analogy doesn't exist there. But I have another one. If you are on a desert island without a food and waves bring you a one day food supply would you say "Oh now i will pass it What's the use of food enough for one day if a don't have continuous daily supply"? I guess You wouldn't reject that.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #64 on: 04/30/2018 04:19 PM »
Actually in my film I estimated the number at 1/20 exactly to avoid any bias and NOT to push anything to prove my point at any cost.

So where does the 1/20 number come from?

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #65 on: 04/30/2018 05:22 PM »
If you watched my film

at 6 36 It is obvious that if we know that in our Solar system (and there are trillions of such in Universe) there are 2 habitable planets and at one out of these two, life actually developed. That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate, but based on that. It seems that recently many scientists tend to favour idea that EVERY habitable planet develops life once.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #66 on: 04/30/2018 05:49 PM »
If you are on a desert island without a food and waves bring you a one day food supply would you say "Oh now i will pass it What's the use of food enough for one day if a don't have continuous daily supply"? I guess You wouldn't reject that.
I would retrieve the box of food. Then I would store it away with the intention of eating from it only later once I'm at the point of near-starvation, in order to maximize the amount time that I'd be able to survive on just this single box of food. Because based on this single data point (arrival of a single box of food) I have no clue what the probability of another box of food arriving in the coming days is. It could be 100% or 0% or anything inbetween. I don't know yet, I can only guess.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #67 on: 04/30/2018 06:00 PM »
...there are 2 habitable planets and at one out of these two, life actually developed. That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate...

You're committing the fallacy of begging the question or assuming what you are trying to demonstrate. You're trying to answer the question, "Is earth typical?", by assuming that earth is in fact typical.




Offline whitelancer64

Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #69 on: 04/30/2018 06:23 PM »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?

Online rakaydos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #70 on: 04/30/2018 06:44 PM »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?
"Easy" if it exists. Impossible to prove it doesnt.

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #71 on: 04/30/2018 07:02 PM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #72 on: 04/30/2018 07:13 PM »
Because I consider that obvious.

Ok, other very educated people do not make the multitude of assumptions you make, and are thus not as sure as you.

Quote
It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
Perhaps!

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Liked: 1483
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #73 on: 04/30/2018 07:31 PM »
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious.
It is absolutely not obvious, in fact there is a good chance it is simply wrong. Evolution does not have an "end goal." That is a common misconception, and makes the rest of your argument meaningless.

It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
This site has a strong audience of scientists and engineers. This thread in particular is for "rational analysis." You have not been doing rational analysis, since you have continued to ignore the anthropic principle after it was already explained to you. You have managed to take the inherently subjective analysis of the Drake equation and make objectively wrong claims anyway. When some say the chance is almost 100% and some say it is closer to 1 in a billion, you can't just average them and say 50%, and then claim 5% is conservative. Conservative by definition would be to use the 1 in a billion (10^9) estimate. If you wanted to split the difference, you should split the order of magnitude and use something like 1 in 30000.

The analysis is inherently subjective, because we don't have the data required to make a meaningful guess at the "1 in a billion" figure, it could even be orders of magnitude smaller than that. Your guesses became objectively wrong when you claimed that you were accounting for the extremely low guesses, and still claimed you were conservative when you objectively were not.

If you want to make claims based on bad statistics and misinterpreted science and not have them rebutted, you are on the wrong site. If you are interested in facts, logic, etc. then you are in the right place.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Liked: 1483
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #74 on: 04/30/2018 08:30 PM »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?
So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
"Find out what is in the car by observing it" fits the definition of science:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

You are performing a "practical activity" using "observation" to determine the "structure of the physical world" (contents of the car) This can simply be formatted as "systematic study" (look in front and rear windows, open trunk, note contents)

Very likely you’d give me a weird look and say no.
This incorrect assumption is the basis of the rest of your post and shows that you don't understand the basic concept of science.

Science gets the role for what cannot be done or explained.
And this approaches claiming that science is the exact opposite of what it is. Science is specifically for what can be explained, although it is obviously most focused on what hasn't been explained yet, or can still be explained in more detail.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3307
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #75 on: 04/30/2018 08:35 PM »
That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate, but based on that. It seems that recently many scientists tend to favour idea that EVERY habitable planet develops life once.
Two issues with this:
1) It's important to distinguish between reasonable, informed speculation and statements based on specific evidence. Until we know more about how life arose or how common it is, "Life started early on Earth, so it probably starts easily in the right conditions" is firmly in the former category. As a default position, the Copernican principle is a good bet, but as Mondagun and meberbs point out, you can't exclude survivor bias.

2) Even if you assume life arises easily in the right conditions, we have very little idea how Earth-like those conditions must be, so we can't reliably estimate how common they are. In fact, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about what Earth was like when life first appeared.

Quote
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious.
It's not obvious. It took Earth 4+ billion years to evolve intelligent life. Even if you make the unjustified assumption that technological life typically appears in this time frame, things like supernovae and giant impacts will reset a significant number of systems on shorter intervals. Survivor bias raises its ugly head again.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #76 on: 04/30/2018 08:45 PM »
So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
Meberbs beat me to it, but yes: if you go to the car to make observations, analyze these observations, and draw conclusions from it ... then that's a perfect example of a scientific investigation.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #77 on: 04/30/2018 10:27 PM »
It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
That's up to you to decide. Just be aware that as long as you keep presenting your treatment of the Drake equation as conclusive and free from big uncertainties, you're likely to encounter elsewhere the same type of criticisms as you faced here.

As a scientist from the SETI League succinctly put it:
The importance of the Drake Equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation. It was written not for purposes of quantification at all, but rather as the agenda for the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank WV in 1961. It was quite useful for its intended application, which was to summarize all the various factors which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other life. ... For the record, I consider the Drake Equation to be a marvelous tool for quantifying our ignorance. ...
« Last Edit: 04/30/2018 10:30 PM by Mondagun »

Offline Athrithalix

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • UK
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #78 on: 05/01/2018 08:57 AM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution through natural selection suggest that increasing complexity is inevitable. Natural selection increases survival fitness in the current environment, complexity is better described as another trait that can increase or decrease, with either direction leading to an increase in survival fitness based on whether the current environment rewards or punishes complexity. Complex organisms pay a price for complexity of energy expenditure maintaining that complexity against the outside environment, if the environment is too harsh then complex organisms will be selected against and simple organisms will bloom. This can be seen on Earth in when environments become chemically or thermally extreme, eg. a pond heated and acidified will see fish, plants, and insects struggle to reproduce effectively, but bacteria and protists often thrive in these conditions as it is easier to maintain their simpler internal environment against the harsh outside conditions. I’m not aware of any chemically or thermally extreme environments that host complex life but not simple life.
The claim for increasing intelligence suffers similarly, intelligence requires the use of huge amounts of energy that can be repurposed to other things (running fast, hitting hard, etc.) and is only selected for in environments where it is reproductively rewarded more than these other choices for energy use. Though it is not as clear cut as the complexity claim, it is very likely that there are many environments that do not select for intelligence over other traits (I’d be interested if you could provide a source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence).

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #79 on: 05/01/2018 10:24 AM »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution through natural selection suggest that increasing complexity is inevitable
. Natural selection increases survival fitness in the current environment, complexity is better described as another trait that can increase or decrease, with either direction leading to an increase in survival fitness based on whether the current environment rewards or punishes complexity. Complex organisms pay a price for complexity of energy expenditure maintaining that complexity against the outside environment, if the environment is too harsh then complex organisms will be selected against and simple organisms will bloom. This can be seen on Earth in when environments become chemically or thermally extreme, eg. a pond heated and acidified will see fish, plants, and insects struggle to reproduce effectively, but bacteria and protists often thrive in these conditions as it is easier to maintain their simpler internal environment against the harsh outside conditions. I’m not aware of any chemically or thermally extreme environments that host complex life but not simple life.
The claim for increasing intelligence suffers similarly, intelligence requires the use of huge amounts of energy that can be repurposed to other things (running fast, hitting hard, etc.) and is only selected for in environments where it is reproductively rewarded more than these other choices for energy use. Though it is not as clear cut as the complexity claim, it is very likely that there are many environments that do not select for intelligence over other traits (I’d be interested if you could provide a source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence).
Of course I disagree. Theory of evolution is all about increasing of complexity. Every living organism has to adapt, become more efficient or it will be destroyed by competitive organisms. Planets with only bacteria that live there for billions of years without change are impossible. What would that bacteria eat?  You need source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence? The only way they didn't increased intelligence (what you claim) is if they are created the same as they are now together with bacteria elephants etc or in other words if they are created instantly billions of years ago with the same intelligence body structure etc as now. i e if god created them perfect as they are at the beginning without any need for improvement or evolution. Is that what you are talking about? Could you provide any other explanation for your claim that dolphins didn't increase their intelligence?

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #80 on: 05/01/2018 10:38 AM »
Here we can see that author (President of the Chicago Society for Space Studies) uses 0,2 (1 out of 5) for fl  We can also see that Drake himself believed that every habitable planet develops life (fl=1,0 in his original equation). So I can say that I am 20 times more conservative than Drake.
http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html

Offline eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Japan
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 452
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #81 on: 05/01/2018 10:50 AM »
Quote
Of course I disagree. Theory of evolution is all about increasing of complexity. Every living organism has to adapt, become more efficient or it will be destroyed by competitive organisms. Planets with only bacteria that live there for billions of years without change are impossible. What would that bacteria eat?  You need source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence? The only way they didn't increased intelligence (what you claim) is if they are created the same as they are now together with bacteria elephants etc or in other words if they are created instantly billions of years ago with the same intelligence body structure etc as now. i e if god created them perfect as they are at the beginning without any need for improvement or evolution. Is that what you are talking about?

Intelligence≠complexity, necessarily, nor adapting to evolutionary pressures (what Athrithalix was aguing about, don't go into religious issues without need) equals developing intelligence.

Dinosaurs were more complex than lizards, they went extinct and evolution didn't bring any of the extremely large organisms back. A mantis shrimp has an incredibly complex visual system which we completely lack, yet it has no intelligence. Its species has been around for far longer than ours, and evolution didn't lead to increasing intelligence. In fact, most species are older than ours, and evolution hasn't led to intelligence in any of them.

Of course, you don't need to think too much if you consider evolution is all about multiplicative reproductive success. Bacteria are wildly more successful than us at that, and have evolved other ways, while keeping their niche intact, and outnumbering us by an inordinate amount. So do insects, whose lack of human-relatable intelligence or emotions is notorious.

Quote
Could you provide any other explanation for your claim that dolphins didn't increase their intelligence?

Negations are not demonstrable. Assertions *need* to be.
Please don't troll, and in case you're trying hard not to, please do away with absolute assertions based only on your opinion on how things should be. That includes willfully ignoring basic statistical principles and proverbially "mansplaining" people what a scientific theory is about without even bothering to read its Wiki page.


Quote

Here we can see that author (President of the Chicago Society for Space Studies) uses 0,2 (1 out of 5) for fl  We can also see that Drake himself believed that every habitable planet develops life (fl=1,0 in his original equation). So I can say that I am 20 times more conservative than Drake.


And? Neither have a basis, they're just guesses, as people have been explaining you all along. I can even assign it a value greater than 1, if I consider life developed in a world panspermiates to others. Maybe I believe all life developed in a planet eventually colonizes at least 10 others, is that conservative? 100? 10^10? Who's to say? We don't even know how close on average exoplanets are to each other.


By the way, by this gentleman's own page: "fl = 0.2 with no sound basis, I decided that life will emerge on only 1 in 5 habitable planets." He is, by the way and by his own personal page, an artist and photographer, along with software engineer, data analyst and web designer, I'm sure extremely professional at those. Those talents must leave him too little time for his expertise in exobiology though.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2018 10:59 AM by eeergo »
-DaviD-

Offline Space Dingus

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #82 on: 05/01/2018 11:03 AM »
I believe there's a distinction between changes in life and increases in the complexity of life. Just because life might adapt and become better at living in its environment(see extremophiles) does not mean it will evolve into more complex forms if the conditions and resources don't allow for it.

Assuming all life must become more complex over time seems flawed. It would be more accurate to say life can become more complex if conditions allow.










Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #83 on: 05/01/2018 02:27 PM »
Just as a quick point, Evolution doesn't proactively select for anything; it's the success of a species that decides what happens next. If a species survives with a stable genome, it doesn't change. If a species survives with an unstable genome, it will change as long as that trait results in its species propagating itself.

The only thing we can say for sure is that the lower bound for the probability of just one example of intelligent, technological life in the universe is exceptionally small - something like 1 in 10^-32, IIRC.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3307
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #84 on: 05/01/2018 04:40 PM »
Here we can see that author (President of the Chicago Society for Space Studies) uses 0,2 (1 out of 5) for fl  We can also see that Drake himself believed that every habitable planet develops life (fl=1,0 in his original equation). So I can say that I am 20 times more conservative than Drake.
http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html
Quoting from the page
Quote
fl = 0.2 with no sound basis, I decided that life will emerge on only 1 in 5 habitable planets.
And the final note
Quote
The Drake Equation must be one of the swaggiest (SWAG being the acronym for Scientific Wild-A** Guess) equations ever created because of the uncertainty associated with its parameters.
Which is exactly what a number of people here have been trying to tell you. 0.2 is a fine WAG. So is 1, and so is 0.000000001. They're all within the uncertainties of current measurement.

Edit:
You also quote Drake using 1, but again, Drake has always been clear the equation isn't really about getting an answer, it's way of parameterizing the unknowns. While we haven't made much progress on fl, fi, fc or L, we've made significant improvements on fp and we're closing in on ne
« Last Edit: 05/01/2018 04:43 PM by hop »

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #85 on: 05/01/2018 04:42 PM »
Of course I disagree. Theory of evolution is all about increasing of complexity.
No, that's not what theory of evolution is all about. As the wikipedia page on evolution nicely summarizes it:

A common misconception is that evolution has goals, long-term plans, or an innate tendency for "progress", as expressed in beliefs such as orthogenesis and evolutionism; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.[186][187][188]

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5381
  • Liked: 934
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #86 on: 05/01/2018 05:04 PM »
For decades, if not longer, there has been weak evidence associating UFO's with alien spacecraft.  If some UFO's really are alien spacecraft, why is it that the quantity and quality of evidence has not increased enormously now that just about everyone has a video camera (phone) in hand?

This point has been made by Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, someone who is obviously open to the idea of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Offline Chris Bergin

Yeah, this thread is going to have to be locked now. Amazed it got to page 5 to be honest! ;D

Tags: