The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

In the "go fast" video, the information clearly shown on the pilot's display shows that the pilot's interpretation of the object was WAY wrong.

The pilot thought the object was seriously fast, when it was not. And, the pilot was WAY off in his estimation of the speed of the object.

You have cited that doc SEVERAL times.

But, it is NOT specific to the "go fast" incident.

You keep trying to win an argument by presenting data that doesn't even apply to the event in question!!!

Please stop doing that.

 

You're up to more than that.

Otherwise, why would you care if the unexplained "go fast" video isn't what it seemed to the pilots to be?

My point is that the pilots ascribed characteristics to the object in "go fast" that are countered by the information on their jet's display.

You know what they said. And, you can read the instruments.

We know there are Earthly objects that have flight characteristics consistent with what the jet's instruments state.

 

What Fravor and Dietrich described in the clip shown is not in the go fast video, so West's calculations are moot to their description.

Please stop doing that.

 

Why? Because you can't snicker at facts, so let's stick with that is known.

What Fravor and Dietrich described in the clip shown is not in the go fast video, so West's calculations are moot to their description.

Listen carefully to their descriptions. It's not in the go fast video. I mean, what they are describing is vastly different than the video, so either they had imbibed a fifth of Tequila (which obviously is not the case) or they are talking about that which is not represented in the Go Fast video, and as such, West's calculation is a moot point.

 

Yes, how dare we try to shoot down your fantasy beliefs with things like science, actual observation, and asking tough questions. You want to live in your fantasies, and not have people tell you that you are believing a lie. The lie just makes you happier than the truth.

 

Ad hominems fall under the broader category of posturing.

Posturing is not a valid argument. Posturing doesn't improve an argument.


Now then,

Listen to Fravor & Detriech in the clip I provided.

The Navy has truncated the 'Go Fast' Video. Listening to Fravor an Detriech it is clear to me they are describing the objects movements which have been truncated from the video, or were never on the video in the first place and are on some other video the Navy is not disclosing.

That isn't fantasy, that is a reasonable assessment of why Fravor's testimony is not reflected in the Go Fast video.

 

The catch here is that one must analyze these events ONE AT A TIME. They are separate incidents. The have very different characteristics. You can't start out a legitimate analysis with the ASSUMPTION that they are all tapes of the same vehicle. That is NOT a legitimate assumption.

I started with "go fast", because it has more concrete data. I hoped that we could use a discussion of that tape as a means of setting mutual expectations of how a valid analysis should be performed.

If you can manage to accept an analysis of "go fast" that is based on "go fast" alone, then maybe we should pick ONE other tape to look at as a next step.

But, as long as you DEMAND that we scramble the data from one tape to the next, that's the end of ALL possibility of a rational analysis.

Besides, why would you stop there? Why not find some OTHER tape to scramble and add to this analysis?

Why would YOU accept having ME use data from other events?

 

Exactly!! Now you're making progress.

What was recorded in the other videos can not be used in any valid analysis of "go fast".

And, an analysis or recording of "go fast" can not be used as evidence in any of the other tapes.

 

The futility in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence is dwarfed by the futility in searching for terrestrial intelligence.

 

Yes, and some might consider 'terrestrial intelligence' to be an oxymoron.

 

Back in the 1980's I had the opportunity to see Lily Tomlin's one-person show "In Search of Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe". It was hilarious! One line I'll never forget: "I know where corn oil comes from. I know where peanut oil comes from. But I worry about where baby oil comes from."

 

Oh, try looking back. I did attempt originally, discussing exactly why the claims you were believing were false. Showing not only evidence but actual science why they were fakes and frauds. And your only response was not refuting the facts at all, but showing how 5 other conspiracy theorists all claimed he was right, and that was enough for you.

And as that was the extent that you actually tried to discuss the science, I dismissed any interest in a serious conversation, as you just give your hand and dismiss anybody that does not agree with you.

But do not be confused and take this now as a "valid argument", you dismissed every one I had given in the past by simply ignoring it, or throwing up yet another claim of the exact same thing, no more believable than the last. So now I simply do the same in return.

 

I have an analysis by three physicists, linked to below.

Okay, how about this:

Let us examine, more thoroughly, the incident that occurred on November 14th of 2004, which involved the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG 11), including the USS Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and the USS Princeton missile cruiser.

Okay? Now, I don't know what the name of that video is, but here is a forensic analysis of it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uY47ijzGETwYJocR1uhqxP0KTPWChlOG/view

 

Oh yes, because some random Google Drive document from the "Scientific Coalition for Ufology" carries so much weight in the scientific community.

An organization that takes in less than $50k per year, therefore releases no financial statements. Led by Robert Powell, who worked for NUFON for a decade before forming his own organization. Who once worked for AMD, and was a manager for their fab design sector. And who from what I could find has no papers published involving anything other than UFOs.

Oh yes, this is something we should take so seriously.

 

You post this over and over again.

But, you FAIL to show where it addresses "go fast".

Once AGAIN, you can't support "go fast" based on an analysis of OTHER VIDEOS!!

 

I am not even SLIGHTLY interested in moving to some other video until we can bolt down what proper analysis is.

That starts with "go fast" as that is the one that is so crazy easy to debunk.

If you can't handle THAT one, then moving on is POINTLESS.

 

How may times do I have to tell you I am not trying to refute Go Fast.

Okay?

Why are you so hung up on Go Fast?

the analysis is what it is, it doesn't matter if it is, or isn't 'Go Fast'.

It has to do with a video of a particular event. Maybe it's Go Fast, maybe it isn't

what difference does it make?

It's a thorough analysis of a video. Who cares which one it is?

Just review the data, on it's face.

 

I've answered this to YOU many times.

Your approach is to scramble the data.

Until we get through THAT, there is no valid analysis possible.

The easiest video to analyse without scrambling the data is "go fast".

If that is not even possible with "go fast", then I'm not interested switching to some other video.

The others have highly likely Earthly causes, but a proper analysis is not as trivial as it is with "go fast", and the existing data is being scrambled between those other videos, too. People are actually denying explanations in one case by saying, "but, we saw that somewhere else, too."!! That's not legit analysis, obviously.

I'm willing to discuss ONLY when we can stick to the data that applies to the event being discussed.

 

No it doesn't. Where is the science in your notion that 'it starts with Go Fast'?

What are you talking about?

That's totally arbitrary, and unscientific to make such an imposition.

I might not be a scientist, but I know what isn't logical, and your condition makes no sense.

The question is this:

Are there craft in our airspace which has unexplanable characteristics to current knowledge of science?

Any number of videos, data, testimonies, is fair game to that point.

The question is NOT: Is West's calculation of Go Fast valid?

On the latter, I could care less, it's a boring video.

I do not accept your arbitrary condition, and it is arbitrary.

 

That could not be more false.

Each of those videos is a separate instance.

Scrambling the data between those incidents is just plain not rational if one is interested in an analysis that is even remotely likely to be valid.

In general, you ASSUME that these tapes show something that is inexplicable!! And, you ASSUMED the cases are related in some way.

You can't have a valid analysis when you already decided the result.

It is not arbitrary to exclude preconceived ideas of what a proper analysis might show.

You have to actually do the analysis. And, any analysis has to be strong enough to stand up to examination.

You can't mix the three videos UNLESS you already came to a conclusion.

They are separate events. One could be an et while others are not. One could be a jet aircraft while the others are not. One could be a case of foreign aggression with new technology while the others are not. One could involve a test of spoofing technology from some nation, maybe the USA, while the others do not. One could be a US military test while the others are not.

You can't just scramble the events before actually producing an analysis of each individual case that is strong enough to stand up to examination.

 

Not only is that false, you can't provide any evidence to support that contention.

That is ridiculous.

Nobody is trying to scramble anything.

Forget about Go Fast.

What is the point?

All that matters is whether or not, in fact, there are objects flying around in the sky that defy current knowledge of science.

Is it true, or is it not?

THAT is the question.

Any study that has been done in pursuit of the answer to that question is a valid item to look at.

I presented to you a study in the furtherance of that quest.

Do you understand this very simple point?

I don't think you do.

 

Your entire premise is false. You assume that no pursuit in furtherance of the answer to the great question, 'are there unexplainable craft or not" depends entirely on the analysis of one video.

That is not a logical premise.

You keep saying "I scramble", that is a false statement.

Why? Because it's predicated on the aforemention false assumption.

I am not a scientist, I don't do analyses. I'll search for other's who do analyses, and present theirs, that's all I can do.

All that matters is the pursuit to the great question, "are there, indeed, craft in our airspace that are unexplainable?".

that's it.

Any testimony, any video, any data, all of it is fair game in pursuit of that quest.

You are not the gatekeeper to what can, or cannot be looked at or discussed

So please stop it.

If you are not willing to pursue that quest, and I suspect you are not, you are just hung up on one video, which isn't logical,
I will find someone else who has a modicum of interest and curiosity and is more open minded on the subject.

I presented a study that looked into events that were being described by pilots, inclusive or radar and video data, as 'unexplainable'.

I think you are unwilling to look at it because it is going to prove you wrong, and you can't handle that fact.

There it is, right there.

Right?

I think so.

 

West's calculations are no where near nor remotely close to a forensic study of the videos.

I don't care which videos are looked at. All the matters is do we have data which confirms, or disproves, or leaves the question open, on the matter of craft being observed by pilots which are initially thought to be unexplainable?

It doesn't matter which video, all that matters is whatever we are looking at, what does it prove or disprove?

Everything is fair game, do you not see that?

You keep making the false accusation that "I'm scrambling" but that idea is predicated on the false premise that only one video has to be solved before others can be looked at.

That is NOT logical.

https://www.americanantigravity.com/kevin-knuth-on-uap-ufo-flight-performance

We’re joined by Dr. Kevin Knuth, Associate Professor of Physics at University at Albany, to discuss his quest for evidence-based answers for the UAP phenomenon. Some of the speaking points we’ll be covering include:

In September 2019 he published, “Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles” co-authored by Robert M. Powell and Peter Reali. In that paper, he described UAPs as reportedly being “structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible flight characteristics’. We’re going to drill down on that statement, and explore the “5 observables of UAPs“, which are positive lift, Sudden Acceleration, Hypersonic Velocity without Signatures, Trans-Medium Travel, and Low Observability.

In the Entropy paper, his team did analysis on the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac encounters, and describe these craft as having “ Estimated accelerations range from almost 100 g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat,” and, ”observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel”.

 

If you are going to make a claim, provide a link, so I will know what you are referring to.

I post a lot and do not keep logs.

 

Posturing is not a merit worthy argument.

All of such things are logical fallacies. These are educated men who are putting forth effort.

Perfectly logical, there is nothing profitable about studying UFOs

Jeez, you guys clamor at UFO world for all the 'woo' they put out, and when a few educated guys
try to put out something that is data driven, you still poo poo it.

Looks like there is no way to win with the likes of your ilk.

why don't you look at the study. What are you afraid of?

The US Military has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for the study of UAPs, that effort continues to this day.

They wouldn't do that if it all could so easily be refuted by one guy.