The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, Jun 25, 2017.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it motivates people on Earth to see value in science and "to ensure peaceful space exploration, protect our home planet from cosmic threats and lead the development of new Space Law to eliminate militarization of space", then great!!

    We're making progress on these objectives to some extent, though we are increasing the militarization of space, obviously.

    But, it really shouldn't take long to see this Asgardia thing as totally fictitious.
     
  2. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    10,128
    Likes Received:
    1,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are we any closer to faster-than-light travel:
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Watch from 10:20 into that.

    I like this youtube a little more than many that make stupendous claims, because it actually points out this is only an idea, and it suggests some of the incredible weaknesses of this idea.
     
    Space_Time likes this.
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Excuse me for believing the pilot who filmed the Go Fast video, Commander Chad Underwood, who IS the pilot, who IS an expert on the jet, who knows more about the camera system, a lot more, than West does, where West is not an expert on any of these things.

    At 14:20 into the video, he utterly destroys West's premise that the target's speed off to the left is camera artifact https://youtu.be/dKbYwwwePTQ

    DESTROYED.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2021
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It might be for the average person, but these are highly trained pilots who are trained to observe, for the simple reason their lives may depend on the accuracy of their vision in critical situations, so your premise is misleading.

    Underwood gives a physical reasons why West is wrong, it's not just 'observation' alone. regarding the sudden leftward movement.

    he got radar confirmation from the Princeton. the target was reaquired on their radar some 60 miles away, in seconds.

    He vectored his aircraft off to the left in an attempt to reacquire the target.

    Because his $800 million aircraft was unable to reacquire the target, meaning that if it were a known object, or one presumed
    to be made by US manufacturers, his jet should have been able to reacquire it, he determined that it was moving at speed he has never witnessed.

    At 14:20 into the video, he utterly destroys West's premise that the target's speed off to the left is camera artifact https://youtu.be/dKbYwwwePTQ

    See, the concept of forensic science demands more than a non-scientist's 'high school math'.

    Give me a break. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin.

    West's entire premise is that the target's movement is an artifact of the camera.

    That is a grandiose assumption by:

    1. Someone who is not an expert on the jet, the pilot, and camera system,which is more than the camera

    2. Someone who failed to acknowledge the target reacquire by the Princeton

    3. Someone who is not a forensic scientist.

    4. Someone who failed to acknowledge that forensic science would definitely consider the testimony of the pilot and CIC personnel of the Princeton, let alone the data they had on it, as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2021
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm fully confident this is absolute crap.

    The fact that you can't even handle the simple math of the "go fast" video shows there is NO possibility of progress here.

    I like what you say on several other topics, but this is a total dead end.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    West's 'math' depends on the assumption that the video has an 'artifact'.

    But Underwood's testimony refutes that it was an artifact, as follows:



    I see nothing in your reply that counters what I just wrote:

    Underwood gives a physical reasons why West is wrong, it's not just 'observation' alone. regarding the sudden leftward movement.

    he got radar confirmation from the Princeton. the target was reacquired on their radar some 60 miles away, in seconds.

    He vectored his aircraft off to the left in an attempt to reacquire the target.

    Because his $800 million aircraft was unable to reacquire the target, meaning that if it were a known object, or one presumed
    to be made by US manufacturers, his jet should have been able to reacquire it, he determined that it was moving at speed he has never witnessed.

    At 14:20 into the video, he utterly destroys West's premise that the target's speeding off to the left is a camera artifact

    https://youtu.be/dKbYwwwePTQ

    I'll take his word over that of West, and your clinging to West

    The truth demands more than West can provide.

    The field is much wider that West's assumptions about artifacts and his three calculations.

    If you profess to be a man of science, and truth, and greater truths, how can you deny this?

    Lex Fridman: What are your chances your eyes betrayed you when you saw the 'tic tac' ?
    Cmdr Fravor: Zero



    We do not know what they are, but what they are not are 'ordinary'.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2021
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The military guy in that vide SPECIFICLY ignores what Mick said and does NOT address the math - which is what debunks the idea that the go fast object is fast or is alien.

    YOU CAN NOT DENY what Mick pointed out about go fast. It's simple math based ONLY on the data on the pilot's display.

    Look. DO NOT give me more spam of your vid where the military guy specifically IGNORES what Mick pointed out about go fast.

    That vid is TOTALLY and SOLIDLY debunked.

    In fact, your military guy CLEARLY is not interested in the truth - which I do find amazing. He interrupts to block the discussion and fails to address what Mick actually pointed out.

    NOW, please STOP posting this garbage.

    I'm NOT interested.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are denying Underwood's testimony, the guy who actually filmed the video, who refutes that it is an artifact.
    I explained why, his explanation why, and you are ignoring it.
    Wrong.
    You're not interested in the truth.

    You assume West is truth.

    That is an assumption. It might be partially correct, but it's not the whole story.

    And the truth exists in the whole story.



    8:30

    Lex Fridman: What are your chances your eyes betrayed when you saw the 'tic tac'?

    Cmdr Fravor: Zero. Okay I'm 99.99% certain. So .01% my eyes deceived me --remember that if it deceived me, it had to deceived the other four people [four pilots, including Fravor, two in Fravor's jet, two in another jet confirmed this sighting]

    West interjects:

    "I really don't have a particular debunking for that".

    West's argument relies solely on the video.

    so, who to believe? Four pilots or West?

    West's argument can only go to speed, height, position.

    The only dispute in speed, etc., was on West's ASSUMPTION of an artificact, which was refuted by Underwood.
    The other calcuations are not disputed on speed, etc.


    West's argument CAN NOT PROVE WHAT IT IS THEY OBSERVED>

    Well, three additional pilots have confirmed Fravor's testimony as to WHAT WAS OBSERVED.

    THAT YOU CANNOT DENY

    END OF ARGUMENT.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!!!

    NO.

    Please stop with your nonsense.

    I'm not going to respond to the obvious problems with the other videos when you can't even handle "go fast".

    If you can accept the full and total debunking of "go fast", then maybe we could address the next one.
     
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    False premise.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you'll have to admit you have provided absolutely nothing that even pretends to touch the debunking of "go fast".

    You keep posting the vid of that military guy who refuses to address the debunking of that video in ANY WAY!!
     
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Do you not understand that West's calculations do not prove what they are?


    Correct?

    YOu lecture me on proof, but you are totally willing to accept SUGGESTIONS as 'evidence'.

    Correct?

    Until he can prove WHAT they are, why do I have to 'debunk' him?

    Explain that one.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    West and others who have debunked "go fast" are NOT making suggestions.

    High school math plus the numbers on the pilot's display PROVE that the object is NOT going fast at all.

    The point is that the object in "go fast" is NOT doing what the pilots and other military people seem to be stuck on. In fact, it is behaving exactly like one would expect an unpowered weather balloon to behave.

    There is no proof that the object IS a weather balloon, but there IS proof that the object is moving LIKE a weather balloon - at speeds expected of air currents at its altitude (FAR slower than a jet aircraft) and with no sign that it is powered.

    Are you now going to claim that the "go fast" video shows aliens who are going something more like 50mph and not turning or doing anything else unusual?
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,706
    Likes Received:
    4,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One problem is that we are only looking at the odds of earth-like life. Its very possible a very different kind of life could exist in very different types of planets. My biggest problem is that what is how do we know the aliens are friendly? If they evolved through natural selection and survival of the fittest who know if they are peaceful?
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. It's hard to believe that any sentient beings are not a long ways away. In fact, maybe a long ways away in both space and time, since something like Earth could have happened a few billion years ago, with the civilization being eradicated as Earth will be by our Sun, or perhaps in the future with only the bare beginnings being detectable today.

    I'd add that imho those looking for odds of life are tilting at windmills.

    We have ONE example of life and we don't even know for sure how that one case happened. Where in science is it ever legit to put so much weight on one poorly understood example?

    So scaling the Drake equation to the size of the universe seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know what the parameters should be.

    But, that doesn't mean we should stop looking for life.
     
    roorooroo and Lil Mike like this.
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Who cares how fast it's going? The issue is what they are. His calculations do not tell us that.

    they only cause West to 'suggest', and 'suggest' is not proof.

    Four pilots, two in one jet, two in another, the lead pilot a Top Gun pilot of 15 years, all agree on the following:

    The target was not ordinary, was not a balloon. It had no means of lift, no surface controls, no cockpit, no visible thrust or contrails, and the darn thing mimicked Fravor's maneuvers as he spiralled upward, giving Fravor the clear indication that whatever controlled it (from wherever it controlled it) was intelligent, and you want me to believe West's 'suggestions' over their testimony?

    I think not. Balloons don't mimic pilot's maneuvers. And FYI, that spiraling upward event is not shown on the videos.

    So, we have West, who wasn't there, unfamiliar with the gear, unfamiliar with the ship's radar, unfamiliar with the aircraft, suggesting what they are, and four pilots who were there, who are familiar with the radar and camera systems and the jets, telling us that the thing wasn't ordinary, i.e., not a balloon.

    So, you are saying, essentially that the hundreds of millions spent by the US Government on the following programs, spanning 7 decades:

    Projects Sign and Grudge – 1948-1951
    Project Blue Book – 1952-1969
    The Condon Committee – 1966-1968
    Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program - 2007-2012
    Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force 2012 to current

    Are all for naught, and all of those engineers scientists, pilots, project leaders, etc., are completely incompetent and viola! -- along comes Mick West , with three calculations to save the day, that they shouldn't have spent those millions, heck, they could have saved all those years and money by calling West, and lo, it was a balloon all along?

    Willreadmore, if that is what you are saying, and it seems to be what you are saying because of your obsession with the Go Fast video, as if nothing else in the field existed ( you can't get past it, which is bizarre, given the size of the field), well, you just aren't logical. The field is vastly wider than your 'Go Fast' video.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Addendum to my other reply to this, as the 15 minutes expired.

    That statement doesn't give the more complete picture.

    Outside of any video, Four pilots, two in one jet, two in another, one of whom was Lt Cmdr Fravor, confirmed it was spiraling upward mimicking Fravor's maneuvers, indicating intelligent control and that it is powered, but not by conventional means. This maneuver was not shown in the videos.
    I'm not going to claim that at all. But, since you, not I, mentioned 'aliens', then.....

    Who is to say what an alien ship, containing thousands of years more advanced technology than ours, who is to say what it can or cannot do? No one can make that claim.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It makes no difference how many pilots there were.

    You can't refute math with pilots.
     
  20. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    THE MATH DOESN'T PROVE WHAT THE OBJECTS ARE.

    The pilots are NOT contradicting math. Why? Because the math doesn't prove what they are, there is nothing to contradict.

    so, they say it isn't a balloon.


    Four pilots confirmation that it is not a balloon is better (not saying it's perfect) than West's suggestion that it is a balloon.

    Why? Four pilots are witnesses, West is not. Math doesn't prove what the object is

    Got it?

    Can a high tech machine float in the air?

    Sure it could.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  21. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence
    SUBTOPIC: Evidence-Based Analysis and the Application of the Scientific Method Signals
    ⁜→ "Patricio Da Silva, et al,

    BLUF: When René Descartes the wrote and haad published his book on the "Discourse on the Method" (late 1620's to early 1630s), he was talking about the Ebryonic Rules on the Scientific Method. René Descartes and William Harvey both presented their finding on the cirulatory system, They disagreed on the proper methodalogy of how they got to their conclusion. Descatre was very Galilean in his approach, whereas Harvey was very Baconian in his methodology. For most of us, including myself, would just have said "we agree to disagree" (this bringing an end to the argument) neither had the personality to allow that option. And this began the Pseudo-explanation that we would catagorize as "Camouflage of Ignorance." Today we know that Descarte was closer to the correct solution than the technology of the 17th Century would allow. Even today, was I look as the Descarte and Harvey explanations side by side, and knowing the 21st Century solution, all I find is that I simply do not have a genuine understanding such that I could point-out the flaw in the methodology. I know this becase it was a question in Graduate School that I could not gve an adequate respose. My advisor then told me I was engaging in the "Camouflage of Ignorance." Several of us stepped across the street to off-campus to the Agora Lounge → drank a few beers where I was summarily teased about my ignorance in camouflage. I have my doctorate and still cannot point out the flaw. As Aesop would say today, there is more ignorance in camouflage than is immediately obvious.

    (COMMENT)

    To criticise a possible explanation without sufficiant evidence, on assumptions made given the limited operating dymanics known, is probably not the best position to hold. As it turns out, Decarte's solution was no more correct than was the solution presented by Harvey. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) was simply not in play.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2021
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "witnesses" were MONUMENTALLY WRONG in what they reported.

    The PROVED they were wrong. And, they continue to BE wrong.

    There is NO EVIDENCE that the object in "go fast" video had any source of power or other technology whatsoever.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Math and sensor data available on the pilot's display proves the "go fast" object was not doing what the pilots said it was doing.
     
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RoccoR.

    I am not a scientist, but would you indulge me for a moment?


    @WillReadmore concludes that Mick West's (the debunker) calculation suggest that the target in the "Go Fast" video is a balloon, given that the math suggests that the target on the radar image is apparently floating, a physical action common to a balloon.


    Because of that, @WillReadmore is arguing that that is sufficient for him do accept it as fact, or at least strong enough to supercede the testimony of four naval pilots who, having witnessed the 'tic tac' up close enough to conclude that the thing was not an ordinary object, i.e., not a balloon, that, in a discussion where Fravor was describing the movements of the 'tic tac', whereby as Fravor maneuvered his jet in an upward spiral, the 'tic tac' mimicked his maneuvers, and that he concluded that the tic tac was controlled by intelligence, i.e., was not a balloon. His Co-pilot agreed with this and Fravor stated there was another jet nearby whose two pilots agreed with him that it was not an ordinary balloon, that the four pilots agreed was controlled by intelligence, that it had no visible means of propulsion, no contrails, no wings, no cockpit, no surface controls, etc.


    So, what we have here are two arguments:

    1. Mick West's suggestion that it was a balloon, noting that he is not a pilot, nor does he know the FLIR camera/radar system on the jet, nor was he a witness. He is just a sideline 'debunker'. He is not even a scientist ( he said so). His contention is based entirely on his math calculation which, in his opinion, was consistent with a balloon.

    2. The testimony of four pilots (as stated by Fravor) who witnessed the object, agreeing that it was not a balloon, not an ordinary object, and displayed extraordinary characteristics beyond the realm of mankind's technology. Noting that both Fravor and Dietrich, risking their careers, gave this testimony on the 60 minutes TV show. ( Why would the risk their reputations if it was a balloon? That makes no sense).

    Now, none of the claims by any of the persons aforementioned actually prove what the thing was. One is saying it is a balloon, based purely on math, and four naval pilots, one of whom, the leader, is a TOP GUN Pilot and 14 years of experience, who, by virtue of witnessing it, claims it is not a balloon, but something 'unsettling' and 'extraordinary' and his copilot agrees, both saying this on Television 60 minutes, risking their reputations

    Which argument is more compelling? 1. The one that says it's an ordinary balloon. or, 2. the one that says it's something extraordinary, not a balloon, noting the full context herein described about each?

    Noting also that Fravor said the target "moved around like a ping pong ball" and it finally 'disappeared' having shot up so fast he couldn't see it fade from his eyesight

    Then....

    "Seconds later, the USS Princeton reacquired the target 60 miles away".

    at 3:30 into the video:




    Based on the above, would you be more inclined to believe it was a weather balloon, or something more extraordinary?

    And yes, that as a scientist, perhaps you'd rather not be inclined to believe anything without more facts, but, just go along with me for a moment and indulge, if you could allow yourself to be inclined one way or the other, which is more compelling?
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2021
    RoccoR likes this.
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    12,646
    Likes Received:
    7,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The four pilots agreed on the following:

    1. It was not a balloon.

    Therefore, if it was not a balloon, it had to have a power source

    What proof do you have that it is a balloon?

    none.

    I find it hard to believe that two long standing Naval pilots would subject themselves to ridicule on national television if it were, indeed, a balloon.

    Willreadmore, where is your logic?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-ufo-sighting-60-minutes-2021-05-16/

    " it was unidentified. And that's why it was so unsettling to us. Because we weren't expecting it. We couldn't classify it," said Dietrich.

    On November 14, 2004, Fravor and Dietrich were training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group about 100 miles southwest of San Diego. Unbeknownst to them, advanced radar on a ship that was a part of their training group, the USS Princeton, had been detecting what operators called "multiple anomalous aerial vehicles" over the horizon, descending eighty-thousand feet in less than a second.

    During their training exercise Fravor and Dietrich, each with a weapons system officer in the back seat of their F/A-18F, say they were diverted to investigate the anomalous object. They say at first they found an area of roiling whitewater the size of a Boeing 737. And then they saw something strange above the water.

    "We saw this little white Tic-Tac-looking object… and it's just kind of moving above the whitewater area," Fravor recounted.


    "No predictable movement, no predictable trajectory," said Dietrich.

    As Dietrich circled above, Fravor went down for a closer look. He said the object was about the size of his F/A-18F, with no markings, no wings, and no exhaust plumes. As soon as Fravor tried to cut off the UAP, it accelerated so quickly that it seemed to disappear, he recalled. Seconds later, the USS Princeton reacquired the UAP on its radar. It was approximately 60 miles away.

    Later, another flight crew's targeting camera locked on to what it believed was the same UAP before it zipped off again, though the camera did manage to capture infrared video of something.

    Fravor and Dietrich learned from the controllers on the USS Princeton that they had been tracking similar anomalous objects for days, yet Dietrich and Fravor said they had not been informed. When Fravor and Dietrich encountered the UAP, they were unarmed.

    "I felt the vulnerability of not having anything to defend ourselves," said Dietrich. "And then I felt confused when it disappeared."

    Balloons do not disappear.

    But, advanced technology might.

    BTW, they did a search for fallen balloons in the ocean, none were found
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2021

Share This Page