Why Alien Disclosure Will Not Occur

a reply to: Crisis

First of all, I don't even know why some members here, that are 99% certain there have been NO extraterrestrial visitations ever in the history of our planet, are even posting on this forum. You guys are either trolling here cuz you got nothing better to do, or are just simply blind to the evidence. I don't get it.

I think you are confusing terms here.

People are not saying there have been NO extraterrestrial visitations ever. Just that there is no proof of it.

You have misinterpreted 'the evidence' because you have jumped to a conclusion that is not supported by the said evidence. The evidence supports that UFOs exist. What it doesn't prove is that they are extra-terrestrial spacecraft. All we know is that there are objects in the sky we can't identify.

The government knows that we have been visited, without a doubt........

Which government and for how long? There are 200+ sovereign nations on the planet. How does the anatomy of this cover up work? Who are the key personnel? Which nations are also involved? Some are openly hostile to each other. How do the international agreements work in this case to keep a lid on it all?

Of course we can't prove this doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove a negative.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


What does that have to do with anything? You have to prove that all 117,000 other possible matches are worse fit.

Well, that statement is certainly telling! Actually, if you had a working knowledge of probability; you wouldn't be asking that! Perhaps you should go find yourself a math teacher...

And, no, actually I don't have to prove that the other matches are "worse". You are attempting to use a sort of negative logic that doesn't apply here.

There are far greater that 117,000 possibilities (matches? ... you seem to trying to confuse things here). In fact there are on the order of 1e+81 times more "possibilities"; and that is just for 17 terms...I'm not sure my computer can compute the total number of possible combinations...it is after all only a 64 bit machine and 117, 000 factorial is an unbelievably large number...

If you allow the number of degrees of freedom that M. Fish permitted herself, nearly any template can match nearly any other template.

"Well, in reality you can't match "just any random series of dots", it, quite simply, isn't possible. I'd challenge you do match a series of 17 dots with any accepted star table, but I know you will ignore the challenge; mostly because you too know it's not possible." (wow...a rare hold-over)

Don't be ridiculous; of course I am going to take you up on your challenge. I have the next two days off... look for a dedicated thread.

I take it you understand that you can not use your array of dots, and that it must come from a wholly independent, uninterested third party...other wise your experiment is invalid.

And, you will need more than a couple of days...

ETA: IF you use ANY computer programming, or applications; I'll be wanting to see the source code...i'll do the same. (I do so hope you understand "C")

I look forward to you explaining that in detail in the dedicated thread.

No problem...

So I take it that you don't place any "stock" in machine vision, or computer pattern / template matching methods?

And, just so that I know you are aware; your "stars" will also have to be of the appropriate class, age, and distance...like the stars in the Hill map.

Good luck!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

* Fish did not explain why she chose the particular stars she did out of the Gliese catalogue. When someone else created a map that showed that Epsilon Eridani was a better fit, she rejected it on the grounds that Epsilon Eridani was less suitable for harboring life.

Concerning Epsilon Eridani: From the point of view of the map Epsilon Eridani is very close to Sol, perhaps even hidden by Sol.

However, the primary reason Fish rejected it was because of her star selection criteria; in this case stars capable of supporting life as it might be known on Earth. Thus a 400 - 800 million year old star is does not meet that criteria. The star is also "variable" which tends, by conventional wisdom, to reduce the probability of life harboring planets (apparently it has serious "sun spot" issues...it may also be a good candidate for largish exoplanets)

It's proximity to Sol would also tend to prejudice a Human attempting to interpret the map.

a reply to: tanka418

However, the primary reason Fish rejected it was because of her star selection criteria; in this case stars capable of supporting life as it might be known on Earth. Thus a 400 - 800 million year old star is does not meet that criteria. The star is also "variable" which tends, by conventional wisdom, to reduce the probability of life harboring planets (apparently it has serious "sun spot" issues...it may also be a good candidate for largish exoplanets)

Although it is young, Epsilon Eridani is known to posses planets. Fish rejected it because she preferred her own map, which excluded everything but G class stars... arbitrarily. Tau Ceti remains a viable candidate and may have two planets in its habitable zone.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418
Although it is young, Epsilon Eridani is known to posses planets. Fish rejected it because she preferred her own map, which excluded everything but G class stars... arbitrarily. Tau Ceti remains a viable candidate and may have two planets in its habitable zone.

Yes, Epsilon Eridani is thought to have at least a couple of planets. However, they are not confirmed... They are seeing something that should mean a Jupiter sized planet and another of unknown size, but , the data still refuses to confirm. Neither of then are anywhere close to the Habitable Zone though; "b" resides at around 3AU and "c" is out at around 40AU.

Yes Ms. Fish did select only stars that might harbor Earth like conditions and life. However, it is untrue that she only selected "G" class stars...and the application of specific selection criteria removes the "arbitrary" BS.

Here is a recent white paper on this...

Tau Ceti is on the Hill map, and does indeed have several planets. One of which in at the inner most extent of the H. Z. while another is at the outside extent. So there is an ice planet and a desert planet. While there is no direct indication of life, there are stories...

A point about governments and UFOs which is perhaps good to remember is that very few governments (if any) deny that UFOs exist, if we talk about unidentified flying objects. As I recall, even Project Bluebook had to concede that not every case was explainable and the object thus had to remain unidentified.

Now, some governments may resist the idea that they are extraterrestrial craft, but that is not the same as denying people have seen unexplainable things in the sky.

We might be doing the whole study of UFOs a disservice by restricting the term UFO to something that it, per definition, does not imply.

Unidentified is after all... well unidentified...

BT

a reply to: tanka418

Yes Ms. Fish did select only stars that might harbor Earth like conditions and life. However, it is untrue that she only selected "G" class stars...and the application of specific selection criteria removes the "arbitrary" BS.

Selecting only stars which she believed would harbor planets with Earth like conditions is arbitrary. It is based on a great number of assumptions derived from the scientific thinking of the time, much of which has since been revised. What she did was front load information into her data set. When she found a pattern she could convince herself matched the extremely inaccurate sketch by Ms. Hill, she could triumphantly exclaim: "And look! All of the stars could harbor life!"

In addition to data chopping and front loading, her biggest error was attempting to take wildly inaccurate information and treat it as though it were precise data. Can you draw a map of the town you live in by memory? Try it. Now take that sketch and attempt to measure distances between landmarks with a ruler. How precise are those measurements? How accurate? Could you use those measurements to predict GPS coordinates? That is essentially what Ms. Fish was attempting to do: take a rough drawing based on a recovered memory (thus two degrees away from direct observation), treat it as accurate, and then compare the wildly approximate pattern to a set of hard data. Any resemblance between the rough sketch and a pattern Ms. Fish thought she found would be entirely coincidental. Any attempt to extract information from it would recover only that she put into it.

This is all off-topic, and I will treat it in an appropriate thread..

a reply to: DJW001

You appear to need this:

3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

-- www.merriam-webster.com...


You seemed rather confused about the meaning of "arbitrary", so here is something you can use that may actually apply to this instance.


As even a shall child can see, there is nothing "arbitrary about the selections made by Ms. Fish. You wee bit of drama is also wholly inappropriate (your fantasy exclamation).


I like the way you try to minimalize the "extremely inaccurate sketch", without acknowledging that it isn't intended to be a precision drawing, and, serves very well as a "Template". You fail to understand that a template does not have to be a "precision rendering", and only needs to contain very basic information to be usable (like containing fundamental shapes, positional relationships, etc.)


What exactly is "data chopping", or "front loading"? In over 40 years as a data professional I've never heard those terms...So I have to conclude that it is yet another attempt of yours to escape the reality of the data itself...I'm presuming by negating the data.


I thought about your example of drawing a map of my town...at first I didn't think I could remember enough to even start. Then I realized that I could indeed remember more than enough to build a template that would be easily recognizable, at least to a computer. So, that wouldn't be a problem...after processing with a system capable of advanced vision processing and pattern/template matching we could even derive those distances and ...GPS coordinates you spoke of...but then, after the initial processing we would have a much better "map" of the area that also includes vastly more data, and of course all the GPS you could want...easily.

You are aware that computers are easily capable of comparing "the wildly approximate pattern to a set of hard data." We have entire class libraries devoted to that task specifically, we also have classes that allow for computer vision, and afford the machine the ability to "recognize" the objects they "see".


Sorry DJ, but what I see here is your typical methodology of attempting to twist reality to suit your own needs and views; it won't work here either...

There are ever improving methods for computers to take your "wildly approximate pattern" and compare it to "hard data". These methods are typically called "pattern" or "template" matching, and they work quite well...


In any case you have, so far, demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge in this area as well as the mathematics involved...


You have burned one of your "next two days off".

a reply to: tanka418

All of this is completely off topic and will be addressed in the dedicated thread. In the mean time you might want to bring your data specialist skills up to speed:

Data chopping:

www.researchgate.net...

"Front loading" is my own expression to describe putting information in to a system so that it will appear to emerge from the data, when, in fact, the data was chosen to achieve the desired result.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

All of this is completely off topic and will be addressed in the dedicated thread. In the mean time you might want to bring your data specialist skills up to speed:

Data chopping:

www.researchgate.net...

"Front loading" is my own expression to describe putting information in to a system so that it will appear to emerge from the data, when, in fact, the data was chosen to achieve the desired result.

Ahhh...I see...

There is no "data chopping" in this analysis; IF you think there is, I submit it is your very own wishful thinking. Though to be fair, perhaps you could point out an instance.

Your "front loading" in this instance is fantasy...unless you consider the use of an accepted stellar dataset (like Gliese, Hipparcos, or 2mass) to be "front loading"...

There already has been disclosure. Several years ago the U.S. Government issued an official statement that they are unaware of any extraterrestrial intelligences or societies, and they have no evidence of any such thing.

End of story.

But a lot of people are of the opinion that if "disclosure" doesn't verify something they already believe, then it is a big, fat lie. Which is an odd way of judging whether or not it's true.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
There already has been disclosure. Several years ago the U.S. Government issued an official statement that they are unaware of any extraterrestrial intelligences or societies, and they have no evidence of any such thing.

End of story.

But a lot of people are of the opinion that if "disclosure" doesn't verify something they already believe, then it is a big, fat lie. Which is an odd way of judging whether or not it's true.

The problem there is that neither side is making any logical sense.

The government is obviously covering something up...though what that is won't necessarily "stroke someone's ego" on it's way to being true.

a reply to: tanka418

Your "front loading" in this instance is fantasy...unless you consider the use of an accepted stellar dataset (like Gliese, Hipparcos, or 2mass) to be "front loading"...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The "front loading" has to do with criteria for choosing the dataset, as I will explain on the dedicated thread. Funny you should mention Hipparcos; it was the Hipparcos data that caused Ms. Fish to admit that her interpretation had no merit:

www.legacy.com...

[/off topic]

a reply to: tanka418

The government is obviously covering something up.

Could you be more specific? Provide some examples/evidence? Please?

originally posted by: tanka418
The government is obviously covering something up...though what that is won't necessarily "stroke someone's ego" on it's way to being true.

Sure, the government is covering something up, but as I've often said before, there are only two things the government wants to keep secret -- what it knows... and what it doesn't know.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tanka418
The government is obviously covering something up...though what that is won't necessarily "stroke someone's ego" on it's way to being true.

Sure, the government is covering something up, but as I've often said before, there are only two things the government wants to keep secret -- what it knows... and what it doesn't know.

It appears that "the government" knows vastly more than we do, and vastly less that we can imagine...which makes us next to ignorant, but, apparently we actually try to make some sense from all the . . . stuff...

a reply to: tanka418

It appears that "the government" knows vastly more than we do, and vastly less that we can imagine.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Could you please provide a concrete example for discussion's sake?

a reply to: AlienView

It would actually make me feel a whole lot better and I have PTSD and Avoidant Personality Disorder

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

It appears that "the government" knows vastly more than we do, and vastly less that we can imagine.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Could you please provide a concrete example for discussion's sake?

Okay...the Betty / Barney Hill case, and the flood of misinformation that has ensued...specifically the map...

(this will include most of what you, and many others, mistakenly believe...)