The Galileo Project , A Scientific Search for ET Technology Announced

a reply to: gortex

I have a much simpler solution. A smartphone with the GoogleMaps App leading to:

AECOM Technology
Government Services
7660 W Cheyenne Ave #117
Las Vegas NV 89129

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

Why not?

It's worked well for Dark Matter and Gravity Waves.

The research grant teat is just waiting to be milked.

I personally doubt they'll find anything though.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.

You're talking about the Hopper critique of objectivity in science. The mere action of selecting a topic to study means that you already suspect that there is perhaps a relationship between two things and that means the study is already skewed. This is proven to some degree by the percentage of scientific studies that successfully find a correlation between two variables compared to the studies that just come up with jack squat. How many studies are published where the researchers just say, "well, we looked into it but couldn't find anything," and of those, how many of the researchers got that sweet, sweet tenure from it?

a reply to: gortex

I got an email last week from a group I’m part of - The SCU.

Right now Avi Loeb is talking with J. Greenwald live.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Because GALILEO was crucified for being hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the worlds science, at the point he made his discovery and announcement, it didn't fit the global narrative, it was too problematic

So the name "Galileo Project" is not accidental, and possibly prescient?

Wonder what'd happen if they get a little close to something known by a military or three-latter agency? Funding pulled? Shut down without explanation? Reassigned to a weather station at the South Pole?

originally posted by: gspat
Why not?
It's worked well for Dark Matter and Gravity Waves.

I'm waiting for those things to be debunked, which I suspect they will be at some point. Kind of like String Theory.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

Kinda like the global warming "scientists"
#Climategate

a reply to: gortex

Who is funding the Galileo Project. That might give some indication of what they are allowed to find.

imo...all they need to do is go snoop around in the basement of the Vatican for the truth. Afterall, all roads lead to Rome....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

Like with so many past and present narratives.

"I'll trust the science" is the new catch phrase of a lazy person's indirect admission of, "I'm too lazy to do my own due diligence and use critical thought and instead will allow academics to tell me what to believe because they, too, like politicians are bought and paid for by private funding."

a reply to: Peeple

You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.

No.

A properly designed experiment contains attempts use what is known as the "null hypothesis". I think that the color of light will affect the way plants grow. How would I demonstrate this? The best way to do so would be to disprove the null, "the color of light does not affect the way plants grow."

But the problem with the approach being taken here is that the unidentified objects are unidentified mostly because there is a dearth of actual data about them. Digging up old cases is not likely to present any new data. Highly doubtful that it would have anything to support the ET hypothesis which hasn't already been raised. A lack of data does not help to support a hypothesis.

So, preaching to the choir more than anything.

a reply to: Blue Shift

String Theory is not a theory. It's a mathematical construct which is not testable, not disprovable as to whether it has anything to do with reality. A theory must be testable.

General Relativity is a theory. Testable. People have been testing it for 100 years. All they have managed to do is say, "yup, just what Albert's numbers said would happen." People have also been trying to disprove it. If someone ever does, why, they would be the next Einstein.

originally posted by: Type1338

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

Like with so many past and present narratives.

"I'll trust the science" is the new catch phrase of a lazy person's indirect admission of, "I'm too lazy to do my own due diligence and use critical thought and instead will allow academics to tell me what to believe because they, too, like politicians are bought and paid for by private funding."

When we have Qanon and Alex Jones; why do we need science anyway?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Type1338

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

Like with so many past and present narratives.

"I'll trust the science" is the new catch phrase of a lazy person's indirect admission of, "I'm too lazy to do my own due diligence and use critical thought and instead will allow academics to tell me what to believe because they, too, like politicians are bought and paid for by private funding."

When we have Qanon and Alex Jones; why do we need science anyway?

Nice try at deflection but you're way off in your attempt to quantify "science".

BTW...NASA has some "scientific" pictures they want to send to you of Pluto. lol.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

String Theory is not a theory. It's a mathematical construct which is not testable, not disprovable as to whether it has anything to do with reality. A theory must be testable.

General Relativity is a theory. Testable. People have been testing it for 100 years. All they have managed to do is say, "yup, just what Albert's numbers said would happen." People have also been trying to disprove it. If someone ever does, why, they would be the next Einstein.

Sweet bro. You just validated Bob Lazar. One of the 3 tests of general relativity is the bending of light in a gravitational field.

Lazar produced a video of light being bent by element 115.

Bobby thanks you!

a reply to: Type1338

Lazar produced a video of light being bent by element 115.

Awesome.
I don't suppose you have a link?

But are there only 3 ways of testing GR?

originally posted by: Type1338

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

String Theory is not a theory. It's a mathematical construct which is not testable, not disprovable as to whether it has anything to do with reality. A theory must be testable.

General Relativity is a theory. Testable. People have been testing it for 100 years. All they have managed to do is say, "yup, just what Albert's numbers said would happen." People have also been trying to disprove it. If someone ever does, why, they would be the next Einstein.

Sweet bro. You just validated Bob Lazar. One of the 3 tests of general relativity is the bending of light in a gravitational field.

Lazar produced a video of light being bent by element 115.

Bobby thanks you!

I'd like to see this video.

I don't see how that proves anything about Element 115 either.

They've tested General Relativity in other ways already.

Now they can safely "launder" all their "crashed" flying saucers and dead Martians.

Oh look what we found ; )

Who's paying for this BS, oops I meant Scientific research?
Absolutely no money will be wasted on this venture.
I also suspect Nokia stock price will hit $500 before
anything of value is discovered.

a reply to: MrBlaq

Who's paying for this BS?

Oh, you mean officially or non-officially? Officially, Laukien Science Foundation, Promega Corporation, and Usona Institute. Usona Institute, (part of XViS) as per their web site, conducts and supports pre-clinical and clinical research to further the understanding of the therapeutic effects of psilocybin and other consciousness-expanding medicines...

Unofficially? SV17q (aka The Activity)

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gortex

Because that's how honest science is done. You declare what you want to find and then it's just a matter of creative data interpretation to find it.
#ClownWorld

I know you're being facetious.. but.. it actually kinda IS how science is done.

You observe something, then you form a hypothesis.

You then test your hypothesis.

Avi has observed the odd object that flew through our solar system, and he has observed all of these UAP videos.

He has formed a hypothesis that extraterrestrial life exists and is visiting. He now wants to test that hypothesis by collecting more data to firm experiments to test it.


That's Science to a T