Congressional Oversight Committee on UAP's

[saac]

4 hours ago, Paul M said:

Dylan O'Donnell's latest YouTube video says it all:

Good video. The map showing UFO sightings by location says it all, as does reference to the paid UFO circuit. 

JIm

[maw lod qan]

I've been watching a few so called documentaries, most which have me laughing at some of the obvious stupid things they show.

One investigator got so frightened seeing a light rapidly approaching him, HE DROPPED HIS CAMERA AND RAN!

I had a thought when looking at one of the members images of the Hercules area that showed an amazing number of distant galaxies. 

One of our lotto games is 1.25 billion dollars right now, with odds of winning 1 in 300 million. 

Take the billions of galaxies, then the incredible number of stars in them.

Say only 1/10th have planets, and of those only 1/1,000,000th are capable of supporting life.

If we are the only life in the entire universe, the 6 billion people on Earth have really won the lotto!😁

[vlaiv]

26 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

Say only 1/10th have planets, and of those only 1/1,000,000th are capable of supporting life.

If we are the only life in the entire universe, the 6 billion people on Earth have really won the lotto!😁

That is way too simplified math. It assumes that every planet that can support life - will actually have life.

Odds of life starting from inorganic compounds is much much harder to calculate. Maybe we have indeed won the lottery given that we are here.

I really would not be surprised if it turns out that earth is the only place with life in universe (but I would not be surprised either if opposite was true and life was abundant in universe - we simply don't know enough to try to do informed guess).

[ONIKKINEN]

@vlaiv does have a point. Either way could be true and we have no way to know at the moment with our limited sample size of planets with life on them (1).

I am sure most know of the drake equation, which attempts to answer the question of how common life could be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

We can answer the first 2 questions with some certainty and get a value, which would be that most stars if not all of them will have planets around them. However maybe only 10% of stars in general are of a type that have stable enough lifespans to encourage life to grow and prosper (but also this is unknown and pure hypothesis). The 3rd question is still an open one, because our methods of finding exoplanets at the moment are quite biased to finding large planets around small stars, and not really suited best to finding earth like planets around larger stars. However we still find planets that could be rocky and in a suitable distance for life so a partial answer.

Everything else after that question is at the moment not at all answerable with any kind of certainty since we have just the one planet to sample from. It could be the rarest thing in the universe, or it could be common if given a billion years of stability for the system, no way to know.

Personally i think the numbers game should still play out to life's favour here. We could be the only planet with intelligent life in our galaxy easily, but there could also easily be some single celled organisms somewhere else. Expand the question to the entire universe and i think its likely there are intelligent lifeforms out there somewhere. However a distant galaxy might as well be another universe because there is virtually 0 chance that we ever have a meaningful connection with them due to the distances involved.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

That is way too simplified math. It assumes that every planet that can support life - will actually have life.

Odds of life starting from inorganic compounds is much much harder to calculate. Maybe we have indeed won the lottery given that we are here.

I really would not be surprised if it turns out that earth is the only place with life in universe (but I would not be surprised either if opposite was true and life was abundant in universe - we simply don't know enough to try to do informed guess).

I wonder if there is something we are missing, though.  Evolution by natural selection provided a mechanism by which the evolution of species is positively 'driven.'  Perhaps there is some unidentified mechanism actively favouring the appearance of life itself.  I've no idea what it might be, I only wonder if it might exist.

Regarding UFOs, a phenomenological approach would be interesting. The researcher would try to list as many common factors as possible between all known sightings. My guess is that a fairly consistent profile of those doing the sighting would soon emerge, but I don't know if this has ever been done.  I remain convinced that the way to look into UFO sightings is to look into those who report them, because a wide ranging random sample of people out and about does not produce a significant percentage of sightings. The 'cover up' hypothesis is not impossible but it is the first resort of every crank on the planet.

Olly

Edited August 4, 2023 by ollypenrice
Typo

[vlaiv]

27 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I wonder if there is something we are missing, though.  Evolution by natural selection provided a mechanism by which the evolution of species is positively 'driven.'  Perhaps there is some unidentified mechanism actively favouring the appearance of life itself.  I've no idea what it might be, I only wonder if it might exist.

As far as I know - we have been unable to explain occurrence of life so far.

There have been numerous experiments - and we have been able to demonstrate that under right conditions amino acids form from inorganic compounds - but we have never seen them assemble into proteins nor do we understand how first DNA formed.

Take a look here for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

(one of hypothesis how it happened)

[andrew s]

While we don't know how it happened we are 100% sure it did happen. 😊

A single well established example is all you need. 

Regards Andrew 

PS why do we always look up for signs of intelligent life?

[vlaiv]

1 minute ago, andrew s said:

PS why do we always look up for signs of intelligent life?

Much easier to find on distant worlds than signs of unintelligent life (although latter is much more probable).

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, andrew s said:

A single well established example is all you need. 

Now we know it's possible - but we don't know how probable it is

[AstroMuni]

11 minutes ago, andrew s said:

PS why do we always look up for signs of intelligent life?

I thinks its the same reason why we look up when we think of God. Our idea of superior is always on a level above 🙂

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

At the age of about seven I was aware that there wasn't the slightest reason to think that a God, any God, exists, that there are ghosts to be frightened of or anything at all supernatural, or anything as daft as aliens and UFO's. Why would anyone who sees the astonishing wonders of the the natural world, the real world, from a drop of rain on a leaf to a supernova, waste their time on such unnecessary and futile/foolish thinking.  Anyone with any scientific awareness, any awareness of accumulated knowledge and ongoing investigation, of curiosity and rational understanding, will have an existence replete with delight and wonder.  Only a day ago I was with my grandchildren travelling over Greenhow in Yorkshire, a high hill in an open landscape where we could clearly see the cloud base. I put it to them 'why do the clouds form way above us, and what would life be like if they always formed right down to the ground'. They were silent for a short while then with real excitement and insight they started  describing how different life would be under those circumstances. It was a sublime moment.

[Macavity]

But, in a sense, scientists HAVE looked for Aliens... If you consider SETI? But I sense it is
seen as "mainstream science" - Negative results (except "Wow"!) don't make headlines?

I have not taken a great interest in such things, but Avi Loeb seems to think Oumuamua
was an ALIEN Light-sail? IIRC, it could have been, if it had JUST the right dimensions! But
a lot of other Astronomers... "don't much favour" his idea? I see e.g. Jill Tartar is a former
director of SETI. The subsequent FIGHT Q & A session, did not go particularly well?!? 😅

https://youtu.be/bh3DnraBCqw

P.S. I have no dog in this fight, except I rather empathise with mainstream scientists, who
get dismissed (as a generalisation) re. consuming public funds, achieving nothing etc. 😟

Edited August 4, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

6 hours ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

At the age of about seven I was aware that there wasn't the slightest reason to think that a God, any God, exists, that there are ghosts to be frightened of or anything at all supernatural, or anything as daft as aliens and UFO's. Why would anyone who sees the astonishing wonders of the the natural world, the real world, from a drop of rain on a leaf to a supernova, waste their time on such unnecessary and futile/foolish thinking.  Anyone with any scientific awareness, any awareness of accumulated knowledge and ongoing investigation, of curiosity and rational understanding, will have an existence replete with delight and wonder.  Only a day ago I was with my grandchildren travelling over Greenhow in Yorkshire, a high hill in an open landscape where we could clearly see the cloud base. I put it to them 'why do the clouds form way above us, and what would life be like if they always formed right down to the ground'. They were silent for a short while then with real excitement and insight they started  describing how different life would be under those circumstances. It was a sublime moment.

Best we just be mindful and respectful of the billions of people around the globe, including the scientific community, who are religious and have faith; they to will employ rational understanding and have an existence replete with delight and wonder. Gentle reminder, please let's just stick to the forum's terms and leave God, faith and religion out of this rather delightful UFO thread.  

Jim 

Edited August 4, 2023 by saac

[Mr Spock]

Indeed. No religious discussion please.

[DaveS]

UFO / UAP could be these guys doing something practical at last.

 

 

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

Well, this has been an interesting and illuminating thread, but the results are not really a surprise. The subject has been debated enthusiastically on other forums with similar results and with the vast majority of the views being skeptical or highly skeptical and the minority being non-skeptical. There is a well known forum aimed at pilots which has debated the subject at length a few times, and the responses are pretty much the same as what we see on SGL. The agnostics who are out there tend to keep quiet – which may be a sensible strategy.

 

Unfortunately, the subject seems to be so divisive that the two camps have become extremely polarised with little in the way of a middle ground, and someone who hold the alternative point of view is either ignoring the evidence or is a gullible idiot. As a result I suspect objectivity becomes tainted with emotion – difficult to avoid if we feel strongly about something no matter how logical we think we are being – and that applies to both camps. The responses may be telling us more about ourselves than what is, or is not buzzing around in the sky.

 

Most of us change our minds at some time or another – the same applies to UFO's, so a skeptic can become a non-skeptic, usually instantly and following a sighting that they cannot explain, and there have been many high profile conversion in this way as well as amongst some who are stalking this particular thread I suspect. Non-skeptics can become skeptics, usually when they become exasperated by the huge amounts of complete rubbish the subject attracts – and no doubt there are many of these who have ended up taking their library of UFO books down to Oxfam and wishing they had stuck to Airfix models instead. There is unlikely to be a meeting of minds here.

 

The debate will no doubt continue to be circular until definitive evidence eventually comes to light for the phenomenon or a logical explanation is presented that explains all the weirdness, but even then I suspect there will be skeptics and non-skeptics – it is, after all, in our nature.

[saac]

The thing is we have not been presented with any evidence that could lead to a satisfactory disclosure.  I go back to the claim made before the committee that we (USA government) has in their possession an extraterrestrial biological body. I make a simple request again, produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.  So here we are, without doubt there are many examples of unidentified flying objects; any ATC at any airfield in the country will pick them up on a daily basis until they are identified and then commence control instructions. Those that are not confirmed as aircraft will in all likelihood remain unidentified.  There is no great problem or challenge from that other than to improve detection techniques and evidential procedures. However the jump from those who claim, without any evidence base, that the probable cause is extraterrestrial and specifically,  extraterrestrial life,  have a burden proof that to date they are spectacularly incapable of advancing. 

Jim  

Edited August 4, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

https://www.space.com/interstellar-meteor-avi-loeb-expedition

“It’s most likely a technological gadget with artificial intelligence.” 😮

It may be "ALIEN Spherules"? 😉 But, scepticism seems fair?
It is nice to think these... "might be something", but the greater
likelihood is that they are *probably* not. That's just science? 😉

What constitutes discovery now? What constitutes science?
Whither Peer Review, now it is circumvented by "publishing"
in Newpapers, on Social Media, or writing your own Books... 🤔
 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

12 minutes ago, Macavity said:

https://www.space.com/interstellar-meteor-avi-loeb-expedition

“It’s most likely a technological gadget with artificial intelligence.” 😮

It may be "ALIEN Spherules"? 😉 But, scepticism seems fair?
It is nice to think these... "might be something", but the greater
likelihood is that they are *probably* not. That's just science? 😉

What constitutes discovery now? What constitutes science?
Whither Peer Review, now it is circumvented by "publishing"
in Newpapers, on Social Media, or writing your own Books... 🤔
 

Surely any scientific claim that circumvents professional scrutiny by  channeling social media/news is just destined to be ignored by those that matter.  I can't see youtube/Twitter/Threads/ or the Sun "wot won it" stumping up funding for a replacement particle collider at CERN!

Jim

Edited August 4, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

46 minutes ago, saac said:

Surely any scientific claim that circumvents professional scrutiny by  channeling social media/news is just destined to be ignored by those that matter.

Unfortunately science cannot ignore withdrawl of govt. funding... UK withdrawl from international collaboration etc.
(CERN was once "touch & go"!) In theory, there is a lot of exciting stuff going on... re. greater "World" Collaboration? 😎
https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/cern-and-nasa-join-forces-commit-research-future-open-and-accessible
But, underpinning it, is (important) "public opinon/support"? (They do believe "maverick" Scientists on Youtube etc.). 😉

I suspect, again, we digress! 🙃

Edited August 4, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

6 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Unfortunately science cannot ignore withdrawl of govt. funding... withdrawl from international e.g. collaboration etc.
(CERN was once "touch & go"!) In theory, there is a lot of exciting stuff going on... re. greater "World" Collaboration? 😎
https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/cern-and-nasa-join-forces-commit-research-future-open-and-accessible
But, underpinning it, is (important) "public opinon/support"? (They do believe "maverick" Scientists on Youtube etc.). 😉

The voices that get listened to are not necessarily the ones that shout  the loudest, it is more on content.  I don't think social media drives or influences science overly, not where it matters. 

Jim 

Edited August 4, 2023 by saac

[Rusted]

I started carrying a camera with me everywhere after seeing two "UFOs" hovering over a local hill some few kilometres away. You may well imagine my disappointment. When one of these "UFOs" passed us later being towed by a common farm tractor. It was just a typical, very extended, animal carrying trailer. Commonly known as a grisevogn  [pig van?] in Danish and used for transporting pigs between local farms. The slightly misty conditions on my morning walk had applied an optical levitation, or mirage, to a pair of trailers in the distance. The contrasting yellow PVC cover and different coloured body, lower down had provided the "rows of windows" I had only imagined.

[Rusted]

1 minute ago, saac said:

The voices that get listened to are not necessarily the ones that shout  the loudest, it is more on content.  I don't social media drives or influences science overly, not where it matters. 

Jim 

Reading the posted responses to some of the click bait "nonsense" videos is enough to make one weep for mankind.
People do have some very odd ideas out there! 😱

[vlaiv]

2 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Indeed. No religious discussion please.

Can we discuss faith?

Surely, most of the science relies on faith.

I for one have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow and earth will still be orbiting the Sun and laws of nature will still be the same. Heck, even if I don't wake up tomorrow, I have the faith that the same will happen.

4 hours ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

At the age of about seven I was aware that there wasn't the slightest reason to think that a God, any God, exists,

To be honest, at slightly higher age, I'm wary of such bald claims. And this is not religious view - it is purely scientific.

[saac]

37 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Can we discuss faith?

Surely, most of the science relies on faith.

I for one have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow and earth will still be orbiting the Sun and laws of nature will still be the same. Heck, even if I don't wake up tomorrow, I have the faith that the same will happen.

To be honest, at slightly higher age, I'm wary of such bald claims. And this is not religious view - it is purely scientific.

Nice philosophical rabbit hole there vlaiv but maybe not. Let's just keep to the spirit of this thread, if people have an appetite to explore something else then they can raise a new thread. 

Jim 

Edited August 4, 2023 by saac