UFO Testable Predictions
I have often heard UFO researchers say that UFO research hasn't made as much progress as they may have hoped because the field hasn't fully evolved
into a legitimate field of study. I believe that some of the reasons for this is that the evidence for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial
beings visiting earth is unreliable.
Let's make an analogy, imagine you are looking for a signal in a large amount of very noisy data, it could be a radio signal, or a television signal,
etc. To complicate things the nature of the signal is random, both in time and in space and is almost indistinguishable from the noise. Elementary
information theory tells us that it is nearly impossible to “extract” a signal where the noise power is nearly equal to the power of the signal.
Even if we try to filter the signal we can never tell if what is left is the actual signal, or simply noise that by random chance happens to have the
proper characteristics to get through the filters.
In UFO research the noise are reports that can be explained as hoaxes, natural phenomena, human made aerial vehicles, etc. The signal are reports of
actual EBE vehicles, the problem is that the signal is random both in space and time, and is very similar to the noise. If we try to “filter” the
signal, meaning if we try to get rid of reports that can explained away, we can't be sure that what is left over is actual EBE evidence, or a mixture
of real EBE evidence and reports that can be explained away but, by random chance, happens to have the same characteristics as EBE evidence. - The UFO
legitimacy problem is one of noise.
We can't control the EBE signal, but we can control the noise. So how do we lower or get rid of the noise? How do we “lower” natural phenomena,
aerial vehicles, and hoaxes? Like any good researcher we try to construct a situation where it is impossible or very difficult for extraneous
phenomena to occur, yet allows the phenomena we are looking for a good chance to occur. Also like any good researcher they design, build, and test
their OWN equipment and take their OWN data. To convince other researchers and skeptics that the data the researchers took truly represents what the
researchers were looking for, full descriptions of the equipment used should be made publicly available. The detail should be sufficient that if
another researcher wants to test your results independently, the researcher could build their own satellite and test the hypothesis for themselves.
Furthermore if some skeptics claim the data is simply a hardware or software malfunction the onus is on them to show you exactly how it could have
happened and to prove to you that it did happen. (It's always a good idea to keep records of equipment status)
To avoid accusations of falsifying data, the satellite can transmit unencrypted raw data back to earth so that anyone with the proper equipment can
receive and decode the data for themselves. This may increase the number of hoaxsters who may claim that your data is false, but since anyone with the
proper equipment could have received the raw data chances are that many honest people received the data and can verify that the data is accurate. We
want to manage the situation in such a way that a hoaxster would be equivalent to someone denying something that the entire world saw live.
So how do we reduce the noise, one word – space. Since it is difficult for any one person to get into space the number of hoaxes is almost zero (If
you take your OWN data, with your OWN equipment), since there is no atmosphere the natural phenomena has a very different character and is easier to
rule out, now there are human made vehicles in space, which may contribute to noise, but there are far fewer space vehicles per volume than aerial
vehicles in the atmosphere on earth. In addition human made space vehicles (as far as we know) are limited by present rocket technology so they move
in a certain manner that may be easier to distinguish from EBE vehicles.
So I propose to design, build, and test our own satellites. We have ubiquitous computing power many orders of magnitude more powerful than in the
60's, 70's, or 80's, the software to design, build, simulate, and test the hardware is ubiquitous and low cost. We also have the talent to design
the hardware, heck in certain parts of the country you can find people experts at designing all the components of the satellite. Also the technology
to build a viable satellite is ubiquitous, you can literally build a satellite using “off the shelf technology”, some modern digital cameras and
video recorders are of such high quality with high pixel densities making them excellent ways to explore space for EBE vehicles. The communication
technology is quite literally ubiquitous, and so is digital design so with all these resources we can build an inexpensive satellite capable of
exploring space for EBE vehicles. It may also be possible to perform some rudimentary spectroscopy on the towers, to determine their composition.
There are many details that must be addressed before the mission can have a chance of being successful.
1. What areas of the moon should be imaged.
2. What resolution do we desire, how many meters/pixel?
3. What are the lighting conditions like? What is the frequency distribution of the light reflected from the surface of the moon? What is the
intensity of the light? Etc.
4. What type of camera is best suited for these conditions? What type of optics do we need to use to achieve the desired resolution?
5. What orbit must we maneuver the satellite to orient it so that we can image the desired regions.
6. What type of communication system should we employ?
7. What methods do we use to maneuver the satellite.
8. How do we launch the satellite? How much money will it take, who will finance the mission?
Maybe we can hitch a ride with these guys:
Now even in orbit around the earth there may still be sources of noise that may be undesirable, namely satellites. So the ultimate testable prediction
for EBE's are the presence of giant towers on the moon. The first pictures of the far side of the moon were sent back by the Soviet made ZOND-3
satellite moon mission back in 1965, one of the photos suggested the presence of a large tower. The Clementine moon mission by NASA also sent back
photos that show signs of tampering by NASA to cover up what appears to be large artificial structures on the moon. Now the prediction is that there
are large towers on the moon (some estimates put them at 80-100 miles high!), the way we test it is by sending a satellite around the moon to image
the regions where the towers may be.
Clementine Moon Mission:
Zond 3 Tower:
Now what makes the moon the best source of EBE evidence is:
1. If towers exist on the moon then it is very difficult to explain them away as natural geologic phenomena, though we may have to do research to
determine the chances that such a tower could be formed geologically, if at all.
2. If the ZOND-3 images are accurate then it would prove that the towers existed before NASA sent people to the moon in 1968-69.
3. Since all the moon missions where broadcast publicly (as far as we know) we can easily determine the number of people who have been to the moon and
the equipment they carried and left behind, thereby ruling out human construction of the tower. Hoaxes are impossible (if we take our OWN data, with
our OWN equipment)
In this case the noise is almost zero, if the towers do exist then it is nearly impossible they are a result of natural phenomena, there are very few
human made vehicles around or on the moon, and hoaxes are nearly impossible. If the UFO community can establish the existence of these towers, it will
prove that EBE's exist and have visited the moon.