IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ufos

Reply
Old 9th November 2021, 07:29 PM   #1
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
The TRUTH is Out There . . . Maybe

The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home

Quote:
After the recent release of the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), the scientific community now needs the determination to systematically, scientifically and transparently look for potential evidence of extraterrestrial technological equipment. The impact of any discovery of extraterrestrial technology on science and on our entire world view would be enormous.

Given the recently discovered abundance of Earth-Sun systems, the Galileo Project is dedicated to the proposition that humans can no longer ignore the possible existence of Extraterrestrial Technological Civilizations (ETCs), and that science should not dogmatically reject potential extraterrestrial explanations because of social stigma or cultural preferences, factors which are not conducive to the scientific method of unbiased, empirical inquiry. We now must ‘dare to look through new telescopes’, both literally and figuratively.
How it will work: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/gali...t-ground-rules

It's Harvard. They seem to be very serious. Maybe they'll find an ET. Or a Grey.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 08:38 PM   #2
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,190
They'll find no debris.
The series was cancelled.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:04 PM   #3
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,448
I don't believe in aliens.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 09:48 PM   #4
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,455
It seems to me that, if ever, we're far more likely to find evidence of E.T. sapient life too far away to practically investigate in person. Imagining we'd find it on our doorstep seems so astronomically unlikely that it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 01:12 AM   #5
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,919
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home



How it will work: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/gali...t-ground-rules

It's Harvard. They seem to be very serious. Maybe they'll find an ET. Or a Grey.

The cool thing about researching the unknown is that by definition you never know what you'll discover. I doubt they'll find ET, but they might advance knowledge of the atmosphere as it changes in micro climates. Maybe some exotic geophysics thrown in too.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 07:32 AM   #6
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,176
Oh!

Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I don't believe in aliens.
But they believe in you!

You heartless thing!
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 07:38 AM   #7
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,445
Applause to people who want to study controversial topics more rigorously. But it starts at home. "We're going to be scientifically thorough about everything," stands in noticeable contrast to, "Oh, look, we can't immediately explain everything about ‘Oumuamua, therefore aliens."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 08:35 AM   #8
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,197
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
It seems to me that, if ever, we're far more likely to find evidence of E.T. sapient life too far away to practically investigate in person. Imagining we'd find it on our doorstep seems so astronomically unlikely that it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me.
The traditional evidence requires the landing of a flying saucer in Hyde Park, London, with an alien emerging asking to be taken to our leader, in this case Boris Johnson. I am sure that would go well. Nothing else would suffice.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 08:42 AM   #9
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,559
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I don't believe in aliens.
I don't believe aliens have ever visited our planet.

The universe is so huge that there's probably other life out there somewhere.

Unfortunately it is likely to be so far away that we may never be able to meaningfully communicate with it.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 09:46 AM   #10
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/activities

In a nutshell:

1. They want to build a comprehensive, multi-spectrum sky surveillance network of ultra high resolution imagers, far beyond what any of the world's militaries have yet seen fit to attempt. They want to link it to state-of-the-art pattern-recognition software ("AI") that will proactively filter out all the common false positives in UFO stories, leaving behind just the stuff that really merits a closer look.

This seems to be aimed at solving the "blurry images without corroboration from independent sources" problem in UFO sightings.

2. Contrary to their claim elsewhere to only use data from their own telescopes under their control, they will use data from other telescopes to try to identify and/or rule out artificial origins for other objects in or passing through our solar system. They also hope to build and launch an interceptor that could get a closer look at one or more such objects.

3. They want some really powerful new telescopes to look for tiny, stealthy satellites in high-altitude polar orbits. They also plan to write a bunch of advanced AI software to help with processing what will undoubtedly be very faint signals in front of a wall of noise.

Basically this is a highly aspirational proposal for millions of dollars in grant money to develop software and build telescopes and take high-res pictures of every asteroid in the solar system. Just in case one of them turns out to be an alien artifact. And to take comprehensive high-res pictures of very flying object in the Earth's atmosphere, corroborated by radar tracking, with all the commonplace flying objects filtered out by AI.

I think it's very clever of them to hang this all on the hook of not being able to trust existing data from existing equipment. Their research requires them, a priori, to spend a ton of money on new equipment and new data.

I'd be a lot more impressed if their "history" page detailed the history of the undergrad projects that did the best they could with existing data from existing equipment, and made a strong scientific case for needing to take this next step. Instead, it's just some boilerplate about Galileo developing better telescopes and then contradicting the conventional wisdom of the age. The appeal to Galileo should be familiar to anyone who follows astrophysics woo.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 10th November 2021 at 09:48 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 12:54 PM   #11
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,919
What? Scientists jumped onto a pop-culture subject to secure funding for a pet project?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!

__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 01:14 PM   #12
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
I'll call them scientists when I see them doing some science.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 01:57 PM   #13
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 6,922
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home



How it will work: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/gali...t-ground-rules

It's Harvard. They seem to be very serious. Maybe they'll find an ET. Or a Grey.


I listened to an interesting discussion between Sam Harris, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, on this topic a few months ago. Tyson seems convinced, that the chance of other life out there is overwhelming, although the chance that the other life was of a similar stage of development, dubious. They might regard us as we would regard a worm.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 02:03 PM   #14
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,448
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I don't believe aliens have ever visited our planet.

The universe is so huge that there's probably other life out there somewhere.

Unfortunately it is likely to be so far away that we may never be able to meaningfully communicate with it.
I think what we've seen so far in the alien phenomenon, particularly from the early 20th century onward, is so tainted with anthropomorphic assumptions that it comes close to being a secular cult.

The Surprising Origin of Alien Abduction Stories

Call it the genetic fallacy if you like. I think the the origins of a phenomenon are relevant to judge the likelihood of its claims being true. I think it's a good bet that any "advanced alien civilization" would need some grasp of science right? The thing that took us forever to discover. Or at least some protocol for performing work to achieve goals. They would have to be able to pass these discoveries down the generations (assuming they reproduce and don't live very long lives) with some form of communication if they're not inherited. And what kind of mind would it take to look out there and wonder whether similar beings exist?

Last edited by Venom; 10th November 2021 at 02:07 PM.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2021, 02:29 PM   #15
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
More about the Project in the Skeptical Inquirer here:

The Practical Skeptic - The Galileo Project - Mick West


https://skepticalinquirer.org/2021/1...lileo-project/

Quote:
If we have objects flying around in the sky, then surely taking a close-up photograph of them would be the best way of figuring out what they are, right?

Consider what the goal of an investigation into UFOs should be. UFOlogy as an investigation seeks to answer two questions: Are some UFOs nonhuman-controlled craft? and What exactly are those UFOs?
Mick West had input so I have hope that the science is real.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 07:23 AM   #16
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
What? Scientists jumped onto a pop-culture subject to secure funding for a pet project?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!
The obnoxious thing about this one is that the pop-culture subject is the pet project. It's not like they're raising funding for cancer research by suggesting they might find alien DNA.

They're raising funding for alien spacecraft research by suggesting they might find alien spacecraft.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 07:26 AM   #17
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
More about the Project in the Skeptical Inquirer here:

The Practical Skeptic - The Galileo Project - Mick West


https://skepticalinquirer.org/2021/1...lileo-project/



Mick West had input so I have hope that the science is real. : coo l:
I have no doubt the science is real. What they're proposing make sense, except they're proposing it on an absurd scale. There's nothing scientifically dubious about pointing a megapixel camera and a radar set at the sky, and cross-referencing what gets picked up.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 08:04 AM   #18
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have no doubt the science is real. What they're proposing make sense, except they're proposing it on an absurd scale. There's nothing scientifically dubious about pointing a megapixel camera and a radar set at the sky, and cross-referencing what gets picked up.
I think they're trying to move beyond "we saw three fuzzy lights in the sky and they form a TRIANGLE and therefore aliens!" To do this in any sort of definitive way will cost a bit of money. Something maybe of the order of making a season of The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch. It can't be money less well spent.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 08:26 AM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I think they're trying to move beyond "we saw three fuzzy lights in the sky and they form a TRIANGLE and therefore aliens!" To do this in any sort of definitive way will cost a bit of money. Something maybe of the order of making a season of The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch. It can't be money less well spent.
As I understand it, their proposed solution needs to be preemptive. They can't do this by waiting for a UFO report, then rushing to the site to set up their cameras and radars. They way they describe it, they want an a comprehensive camera and radar network watching the sky all the time, with pattern-recognition software filtering out the false positives.

That way, whenever someone says they saw three lights, this team can dive into the video footage and radar returns from that region of the sky, and figure out what - if anything - was actually seen.

It's basically this:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...update-eye-sky

But pointed at the entire sky, rather than a specific urban center, and with the addition of radar for cross-referencing. Forget about The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch. This would probably cost more than the entire air defense surveillance expenditures of the US, Russia, and China combined.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 09:21 AM   #20
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have no doubt the science is real. What they're proposing make sense, except they're proposing it on an absurd scale. There's nothing scientifically dubious about pointing a megapixel camera and a radar set at the sky, and cross-referencing what gets picked up.
I don't have any problem with this being an exercise in proposing a goal that requires a lot of new and innovative data-gathering capacity. Even if the nominal goal isn't the one that ends up being most useful, the framework is there. (I have problems with such things being used for intrusive domestic surveillance of persons, but that's another thread.) But I would have framed it as, "We need all that for this prosiac purpose, but (wink, wink) we're really going to use it to look for UFOs." Maybe that's why the project references the nothingburger defense report that basically says we need more data-gathering capacity.

I agree that real science has to get out in front of the hypothesis. You can't rush to the scene of where something extraordinary happened and content yourself with the scraps of data you can collect after the fact. You want the data you need already to have been collected, like data recorders in commercial transport vehicles.

Here's the problem. The UFO movement has progressed steadily in the face of new and ubiquitous data gathering. We have reams of radar data, cameras already scanning the skies for other purposes, and practically every citizen in the civilized world carrying a reasonably high-quality camera. It doesn't matter how extensive your network is, or how good your optics are, or how clever you can make your AI. There will always remain a class of observations that is just beyond the threshold of whatever equipment and techniques you're using. And that class of observations will always be the basis of belief in UFOs. Every attempt to systematize data collection Once And For All in order to resolve the UFO question will ever only succeed in kicking the can down the road.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 10:34 AM   #21
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I don't have any problem with this being an exercise in proposing a goal that requires a lot of new and innovative data-gathering capacity. Even if the nominal goal isn't the one that ends up being most useful, the framework is there. (I have problems with such things being used for intrusive domestic surveillance of persons, but that's another thread.) But I would have framed it as, "We need all that for this prosiac purpose, but (wink, wink) we're really going to use it to look for UFOs." Maybe that's why the project references the nothingburger defense report that basically says we need more data-gathering capacity.

I agree that real science has to get out in front of the hypothesis. You can't rush to the scene of where something extraordinary happened and content yourself with the scraps of data you can collect after the fact. You want the data you need already to have been collected, like data recorders in commercial transport vehicles.

Here's the problem. The UFO movement has progressed steadily in the face of new and ubiquitous data gathering. We have reams of radar data, cameras already scanning the skies for other purposes, and practically every citizen in the civilized world carrying a reasonably high-quality camera. It doesn't matter how extensive your network is, or how good your optics are, or how clever you can make your AI. There will always remain a class of observations that is just beyond the threshold of whatever equipment and techniques you're using. And that class of observations will always be the basis of belief in UFOs. Every attempt to systematize data collection Once And For All in order to resolve the UFO question will ever only succeed in kicking the can down the road.
Would that were true. At least that would be progress but we are dealing with TRUE BELIEVERS who continue to believe in face of incontrovertible mundane explanations -- the so called Phoenix Lights for example.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 10:38 AM   #22
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As I understand it, their proposed solution needs to be preemptive. They can't do this by waiting for a UFO report, then rushing to the site to set up their cameras and radars. They way they describe it, they want an a comprehensive camera and radar network watching the sky all the time, with pattern-recognition software filtering out the false positives.

That way, whenever someone says they saw three lights, this team can dive into the video footage and radar returns from that region of the sky, and figure out what - if anything - was actually seen.

It's basically this:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...update-eye-sky

But pointed at the entire sky, rather than a specific urban center, and with the addition of radar for cross-referencing. Forget about The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch. This would probably cost more than the entire air defense surveillance expenditures of the US, Russia, and China combined.
As JC said, "By their fruits you shall know them". We'll see how well they do.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 11:16 AM   #23
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,445
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Would that were true. At least that would be progress but we are dealing with TRUE BELIEVERS who continue to believe in face of incontrovertible mundane explanations -- the so called Phoenix Lights for example.
How true. There is a class of observations that have been thoroughly explained to a reasonable standard of proof, but which will always feed the imaginations of the true believers. I speak (perhaps in vain hope) of those who genuinely want to explain the strange lights in the sky, and will always be stymied by the need for just a little bit more resolution in the sensor, a little bit more clarity in the optics, and a little bit more I in the AI. If one's goal is to eliminate the "But we just don't have enough information to explain it" inductive leap, one will be sad a lot.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 12:41 PM   #24
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
As JC said, "By their fruits you shall know them". We'll see how well they do.
They're already doing badly, in my opinion.

I could almost buy:

"We need trillions of dollars for a spacecraft to carry out a high-resolution optical survey of everything in the asteroid belt. It will provide a comprehensive catalog of what's there, and allow future mission planners to make informed decisions about what objects to focus their resources on. This large monetary outlay at the beginning will lead to substantial cost efficiencies over the lifetime of our exploration of the Solar System. We may also discover one or more alien artifacts this way wink."

I cannot buy:

"We need billions or trillions of dollars for a comprehensive sky surveillance system and database, so that whenever someone claims to have seen a UFO we can conclusively rule one way or the other on their claim. And we need more millions or billions for a survey of the asteroid belt and everything else in orbit around the sun, just in case one of them turns out to be an alien artifact. And we need more millions at least to check if there are any small, stealthy alien satellites in high-altitude polar orbits. Remember Galileo!"

ETA: "See how well they do" doesn't really apply for me, in this case. It's not like these guys are inventing high-res cameras, or radar, where we're not sure if the tech is viable and we're still in the process of figuring out if we can make it work. I assume that, given enough money, they would do just fine at pointing cameras and radar at the sky and recording whatever is up there. I assume they would do just fine at cross-referencing UFO claims with the data they collect. My objection is entirely to the premise that this is a project worth spending billions on.

The only real science here would be the pattern-recognition software they say they'll need to make sense of the ridiculous amounts of sky surveillance data they'd be collecting. That would be a worthy object of a research grant all by itself... Maybe that's their real goal? That's the science that's supposed to be funded under the guise of "UFO research"?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 11th November 2021 at 12:47 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2021, 08:44 PM   #25
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,919
But will it cost billions of dollars?

It may be a matter of placing the right sensor and optical packages in the right places (lord knows where those are). Maybe as simple as a civilian version of the RC-135 Cobra-Ball which has high powered telescopes, and electronic telescopes, and assorted ELINT goodies to monitor missile tests and satellite launches.

The USAF has a small number of decommissioned observatories which could be reactivated with new optics. We could connect with the Russians and get them to reactivate their as well.

I'm not up on optics like I once was, but that technology must have improved since the mid-1990s as far as resolution, portability, and spectrum. I don't think they have to reinvent the wheel to do most of their mission statement.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 09:48 AM   #26
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 626
CSI / CSICOP on ETI/UFO issues dates back to early 1980's

For those who know me as a skeptic on psychic detective and medium matters, I actually began my skeptical career on the original CSICOP UFO Sub Committee when the late Phil Klass was Chairman. I believe my "entry" into that small group --- ten of us by 1988 --- started about 1984.

The group included Robert Sheaffer (author and co-founder of the Bay Area Skeptics); James Oberg (space journalist and historian, who had a 22-year career as a space engineer in NASA); the late Dr. Ernest Taves, (author of The UFO Enigma (1977), co-authored with astrophysicist Donald H. Menzel); the late Paul Kurtz (author, humanist, and both CSICOP founder and CSICOP Chairman); Dr. Gary Posner, M.D., (author and the founder of the Tampa Bay Skeptics); the late Michael Dennett (who co-founded Northwest Skeptics with me); Major James McGaha (Astronomer, director of the Grasslands Observatory in Tucson with credits on many TV series and documentaries on UFO/ETI); the late Henry Gordon (author, skeptic, magician, and founder and first chair of the Ontario Skeptics, a precursor to Skeptics Canada).

Associate members on the CSICOP UFO Sub Committee by 1988 included the late Fred Durant III (former Assistant Director for Astronautics of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum); David Schroth (author and UFO/ETI researcher); John Patterson (Professor Emeritus, Materials Science and Engineering at Iowa State University); Professor Roger Taylor (Professor at Western Wyoming Community College and co-author with Michael Dennett of The Saguaro Incident: A Study of CUFOS Methodology); Andrew Fraknoi (retired Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Foothill College, and now serving on the Board of Trustees of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute); Ron Schaffner (publisher of the cryptozoology Creature Chronicles); Joe Truncale; Charles Wilhelm; Eric McMillan in Canada; Randy A. Brown; Ian Ridpath (science and space author in England); Allan Brunt in Australia; Jacques Scornaux in France; and Captain Peter Beer, pilot and previous President of the Austrian Cockpit Association.

There’s an enormous amount of public data and commentary that exists among those on this list, and many of those still living continue to write on UFO/ETI matters. I did research in the Physics / Astronomy departments at the University of Oregon over 4 years and became as skeptical about claims of previous and current earth ETI visitations as I am about mediums and psychics having any paranormal powers. And for those who know me, that is saying quite a lot.

Last edited by Sherlock; 12th November 2021 at 09:51 AM. Reason: Minor clarification
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 10:05 AM   #27
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
But will it cost billions of dollars?

It may be a matter of placing the right sensor and optical packages in the right places (lord knows where those are). Maybe as simple as a civilian version of the RC-135 Cobra-Ball which has high powered telescopes, and electronic telescopes, and assorted ELINT goodies to monitor missile tests and satellite launches.

The USAF has a small number of decommissioned observatories which could be reactivated with new optics. We could connect with the Russians and get them to reactivate their as well.

I'm not up on optics like I once was, but that technology must have improved since the mid-1990s as far as resolution, portability, and spectrum. I don't think they have to reinvent the wheel to do most of their mission statement.
Their vision calls for continuous, comprehensive surveillance of the sky, using both radar and hi-res megapixel cameras. Not just at certain national borders, like an air defense network. And not just at specific pre-planned events, like Cobra Ball does with missile launches.

And it has to be linked to cutting-edge pattern-recognition software, that can sift through all of the data and proactively address the false positives and known phenomena.

Which also means investment in a lot of data storage. Hold onto this data for any length of time, and pretty soon you have to accommodate petabytes of video footage. Even at commodity storage rates, that's going to add up.

Even just to cover North America, I don't see how that setup could cost less than a billion or so.

As for linking up with Russia, they say they don't want to rely on equipment not under their control, and they don't want to rely on data provided by government agencies. They want their own proprietary network, and their own proprietary data.

Think about what they're trying to accomplish: Their goal is that any time anyone claims to have seen a UFO, they will have high-res video of that portion of the sky, cross-referenced with radar returns, all from equipment under their control, so that they can say conclusively what if anything was actually seen.

If they were just doing the sky above Harvard, I could see them bringing it in for under a million if they really wanted to (unless I'm way off about the price of suitable radar sets on the civilian market). I don't see them covering all of New England for under a million, though. Let alone all of North America.

There's also FCC, FAA, and probably Air Force related questions about spamming the sky with that much civilian radar.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 10:37 AM   #28
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
For those who know me as a skeptic on psychic detective and medium matters, I actually began my skeptical career on the original CSICOP UFO Sub Committee when the late Phil Klass was Chairman. I believe my "entry" into that small group --- ten of us by 1988 --- started about 1984.

The group included Robert Sheaffer (author and co-founder of the Bay Area Skeptics); James Oberg (space journalist and historian, who had a 22-year career as a space engineer in NASA); the late Dr. Ernest Taves, (author of The UFO Enigma (1977), co-authored with astrophysicist Donald H. Menzel); the late Paul Kurtz (author, humanist, and both CSICOP founder and CSICOP Chairman); Dr. Gary Posner, M.D., (author and the founder of the Tampa Bay Skeptics); the late Michael Dennett (who co-founded Northwest Skeptics with me); Major James McGaha (Astronomer, director of the Grasslands Observatory in Tucson with credits on many TV series and documentaries on UFO/ETI); the late Henry Gordon (author, skeptic, magician, and founder and first chair of the Ontario Skeptics, a precursor to Skeptics Canada).

Associate members on the CSICOP UFO Sub Committee by 1988 included the late Fred Durant III (former Assistant Director for Astronautics of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum); David Schroth (author and UFO/ETI researcher); John Patterson (Professor Emeritus, Materials Science and Engineering at Iowa State University); Professor Roger Taylor (Professor at Western Wyoming Community College and co-author with Michael Dennett of The Saguaro Incident: A Study of CUFOS Methodology); Andrew Fraknoi (retired Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Foothill College, and now serving on the Board of Trustees of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute); Ron Schaffner (publisher of the cryptozoology Creature Chronicles); Joe Truncale; Charles Wilhelm; Eric McMillan in Canada; Randy A. Brown; Ian Ridpath (science and space author in England); Allan Brunt in Australia; Jacques Scornaux in France; and Captain Peter Beer, pilot and previous President of the Austrian Cockpit Association.

There’s an enormous amount of public data and commentary that exists among those on this list, and many of those still living continue to write on UFO/ETI matters. I did research in the Physics / Astronomy departments at the University of Oregon over 4 years and became as skeptical about claims of previous and current earth ETI visitations as I am about mediums and psychics having any paranormal powers. And for those who know me, that is saying quite a lot.
Sherlock,

Given your background, do you have any thoughts on the Galileo Project? Is it viable or useful? Will it solve anything?

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 10:39 AM   #29
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,883
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Their vision calls for continuous, comprehensive surveillance of the sky, using both radar and hi-res megapixel cameras. Not just at certain national borders, like an air defense network. And not just at specific pre-planned events, like Cobra Ball does with missile launches.

And it has to be linked to cutting-edge pattern-recognition software, that can sift through all of the data and proactively address the false positives and known phenomena.

Which also means investment in a lot of data storage. Hold onto this data for any length of time, and pretty soon you have to accommodate petabytes of video footage. Even at commodity storage rates, that's going to add up.

Even just to cover North America, I don't see how that setup could cost less than a billion or so.

As for linking up with Russia, they say they don't want to rely on equipment not under their control, and they don't want to rely on data provided by government agencies. They want their own proprietary network, and their own proprietary data.

Think about what they're trying to accomplish: Their goal is that any time anyone claims to have seen a UFO, they will have high-res video of that portion of the sky, cross-referenced with radar returns, all from equipment under their control, so that they can say conclusively what if anything was actually seen.

If they were just doing the sky above Harvard, I could see them bringing it in for under a million if they really wanted to (unless I'm way off about the price of suitable radar sets on the civilian market). I don't see them covering all of New England for under a million, though. Let alone all of North America.

There's also FCC, FAA, and probably Air Force related questions about spamming the sky with that much civilian radar.
Maybe it would be cheaper to look down from orbit? Anyone care to run the numbers?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 10:49 AM   #30
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Even the global superpowers don't invest in continuous comprehensive coverage from orbit.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2021, 03:06 PM   #31
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 626
Galileo Project: Beyond Earth's Geocorona?

In response to Gord's request:

I just retired from Boeing where I began a career starting as a mechanic and electrician on commercial aircraft (737/767/787/777/747 and their many variants). Over the past decade much of my work was acting as a liaison between manufacturing, engineering, and quality on U.S. and foreign military aircraft, principally the KC-46 Pegasus.

If the Galileo was limited to software development only, and designed for scanning and object evaluations beyond Earth’s “geocorona” then perhaps something less than $25 million MIGHT be reasonable. However, I agree with the above concerns of earth-wide software interfacing (though simplistic non-proprietary designs could overcome some of that challenge), and whether other existing software systems already duplicate such work, though not necessarily designed for the same task.

Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has commented ““It’s really hard to see how you establish a search strategy that would have a chance of seeing one. I suspect there are more well-motivated SETI projects, or even UFO-search projects, that could be funded for less money.”

Mostly there’s a clear need to clarify the obvious. There is, in my opinion, no need to develop a project related to UFO’s – we’ve been down that rabbit hole for almost a century. Sky Hub’s earth-bound AI analysis of datasets also seems a non-starter. There is simply zero validity (from what I’ve studied over 45 years) of ETI craft bouncing around planet Earth.

And if they do exist, at this stage they are clearly objects that are somewhere between delusional space and under a Harry Potter invisibility cloak.

Such cloaks, which by-the-way can be purchased from Amazon (and many others) now include a Harry Potter Deluxe invisibility cloak at just $58. I estimate about 1200 of these would cover the typical alleged ETI craft bouncing about earth for just $69,600, plus tax.

So why spend funds to unravel what I like to call the Harry Potter deluxe invisibility cloak syndrome?

P.S. Gord --- I too often regret my twirling responses to your always polite efforts to get concise and on-topic responses from me.

Last edited by Sherlock; 12th November 2021 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Emphasis
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 06:43 AM   #32
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,559
If you're going to go looking for aliens, I think our own planet is the wrong place to look.

The same goes for our solar system, as far as intelligent technological aliens goes.

Maybe there's a remote possibility of microbes somewhere like the oceans of Europa (which lie deep under a thick crust of ice).

This timely video came up today:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 07:49 AM   #33
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,260
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I don't believe aliens have ever visited our planet.

The universe is so huge that there's probably other life out there somewhere.

Unfortunately it is likely to be so far away that we may never be able to meaningfully communicate with it.
Not only in space, but in time as well. There may have been an advanced civilization around a star only 100 light years from us, but they went extinct a billion years ago.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 08:24 AM   #34
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,286
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Not only in space, but in time as well. There may have been an advanced civilization around a star only 100 light years from us, but they went extinct a billion years ago.
I think L is by far the most important variable in the Drake Equation. If it's millions of years then it hardly matters how small a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be other civilisations around in our galaxy right now. If it's a few centuries then it hardly matters how big a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be no other civilisations around in our galaxy right now.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 11:40 AM   #35
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,919
How about we take ET out of this equation and just focus on aerial phenomenon instead, because this has always been the most productive angle when investigating and researching UFOs.

The fact is this current UFO hype is based on US Navy video, HUD, and radar recordings of incidents in the Pacific and Atlantic. The US Navy's ultimate job is to shoot things and blow them up. The same is true with the Air Force. The world is quickly moving back to a hair-pin trigger, and with the development of hypersonic weapons the shoot/no-shoot decision-making time will shrink. Fast-moving unidentified objects might be a problem. All we need is some jumpy commander at NORAD on duty when one of these mystery objects trips the wire in the middle of an international standoff (which will be a common thing by the end of this decade), and the next thing you know we've launched our crowd-pleasers from their silos.

And yes, that's worst-case, but it has come close to happening a few times in the past already.

Taking the time and spending the money to properly investigate this stuff is worthwhile IMO.

And while their mission statement is grand it reads like the usual optimistic Plan-A that every big project sets for itself, the reality and the working budget set in, and what they end up going with is Plan-D.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 01:12 PM   #36
Sherlock
Muse
 
Sherlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 626
Take ETI craft out of the equation = 0-10 earth based originators

Taking ETI out and basing a development program on determining the originators of earth based UFO craft (I assume the process would also eliminate natural and recognized phenomenon) would leave --- at best – 10 global human entities capable of wishful thinking designs matching the aerodynamic claims of most UFO craft believers.

But seriously, these haven't been manufactured by Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, GE, Honeywell, COMAC/AVIC, Russian VKS suppliers, Boeing, Airbus, Lockhead Martin, or other avionics manufacturers.

And I don’t anticipate anyone coming up with WARP drive or 70-2400 foot (typical claimed range outside of drones) full-cloaking craft anytime soon.
So again, you’re back to investigating delusional claims and sizing up Harry Potter cloaks.

We absolutely should scale up our identification of man-made space debris --- but public ID of earth bound non-ETI UFO craft -- nope.
Sherlock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 01:59 PM   #37
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,455
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They're raising funding for alien spacecraft research by suggesting they might find alien spacecraft.
Those deceptive bastards!!
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 02:08 PM   #38
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,455
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I think L is by far the most important variable in the Drake Equation. If it's millions of years then it hardly matters how small a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be other civilisations around in our galaxy right now. If it's a few centuries then it hardly matters how big a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be no other civilisations around in our galaxy right now.
I like to think of L more optimistically as not so much an extinction timeline but how long the civilization gives off evidence of their existence that can be picked up at interstellar distances. For example, changing from broadcast frequencies to wired and other more locally contained methods.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2021, 09:13 PM   #39
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,559
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I think L is by far the most important variable in the Drake Equation. If it's millions of years then it hardly matters how small a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be other civilisations around in our galaxy right now. If it's a few centuries then it hardly matters how big a fraction the other variables are, there will almost certainly be no other civilisations around in our galaxy right now.
Although, if a planet is conducive to life like the Earth for example, it's conceivable that intelligent life could evolve more than once. If the earth is a typical example, it would take about 2 billion years just to get to eukaryotes, an important milestone on the road to complex multicellular lifeforms like animals.

If we were to go extinct within the next thousand years, it's certainly conceivable that another intelligent species could evolve here in the future.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 13th November 2021 at 09:15 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2021, 03:27 PM   #40
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,861
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
Those deceptive bastards!!
: D
Tell me you don't understand the nature of my complaint without telling me you don't understand the nature of my complaint.

Honestly I'd have more respect for them if they'd used UFOs to drum up support for some other line of research.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.