@DarrenGBNews UK has signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein
Government claim agreement, is worth £21bn and will "slash tariffs on high-quality British food and farm products and support jobs in every area of our country"
Sounds like it goes further than the deal we had with them as EU members too?
Liz Truss really has done a fantastic job, and Brexit is really going as well as I could have hoped for.
‘David Henig, a former UK government trade official who is now director of the UK Trade Policy Project, said: “This UK-EEA free trade agreement provides better trading conditions than World Trade Organization terms, though with considerably more trade barriers when compared with the previous single market relationship.
“There are some useful provisions for UK business such as on professional qualifications or digital trade, but there will also be many difficulties as we see with the similar UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement. Overall this is quite a standard free trade agreement, with limited economic value.”’
Henig is from the "Independent SAGE" school of Brexit.
He's the media's go to contrarian, like Devi Sridhar.
There is no Independent SAGE for trade policy. Yet more bolleaux from self-proclaimed guru Philip Thompson.
Surprised you could not see the nuance of his comment to be honest
The nuance is that Philip has had enough of experts.
Experts have agendas and calling out an agenda by an expert is healthy
For me it is about who makes more sense.
I have read David Henig for a long time and while clearly anti-Brexit he is not hysterical.
Whereas Philip Thompson appears to be some kind of fantasist whose main activity appears to be posting on here. It is not clear what Philip is supposed to be an expert in.
If you are pro Europe than you adopt that nuance
If you are anti Europe like @Philip_Thompson then you adopt his nuance
Fairly reasonable summary do you not think
No.
Trade policy, and expert opinion, is not like choosing a preferred cola brand.
So all of those independent SAGE "experts" fit into which category of cola brand?
That one they introduced and hurriedly withdrew, I hope.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
@DarrenGBNews UK has signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein
Government claim agreement, is worth £21bn and will "slash tariffs on high-quality British food and farm products and support jobs in every area of our country"
Sounds like it goes further than the deal we had with them as EU members too?
Liz Truss really has done a fantastic job, and Brexit is really going as well as I could have hoped for.
‘David Henig, a former UK government trade official who is now director of the UK Trade Policy Project, said: “This UK-EEA free trade agreement provides better trading conditions than World Trade Organization terms, though with considerably more trade barriers when compared with the previous single market relationship.
“There are some useful provisions for UK business such as on professional qualifications or digital trade, but there will also be many difficulties as we see with the similar UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement. Overall this is quite a standard free trade agreement, with limited economic value.”’
Henig is from the "Independent SAGE" school of Brexit.
He's the media's go to contrarian, like Devi Sridhar.
There is no Independent SAGE for trade policy. Yet more bolleaux from self-proclaimed guru Philip Thompson.
Surprised you could not see the nuance of his comment to be honest
The nuance is that Philip has had enough of experts.
Experts have agendas and calling out an agenda by an expert is healthy
For me it is about who makes more sense.
I have read David Henig for a long time and while clearly anti-Brexit he is not hysterical.
Whereas Philip Thompson appears to be some kind of fantasist whose main activity appears to be posting on here. It is not clear what Philip is supposed to be an expert in.
If you are pro Europe than you adopt that nuance
If you are anti Europe like @Philip_Thompson then you adopt his nuance
Fairly reasonable summary do you not think
No.
Trade policy, and expert opinion, is not like choosing a preferred cola brand.
So all of those independent SAGE "experts" fit into which category of cola brand?
That one they introduced and hurriedly withdrew, I hope.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
It's the US playing games. Why, I cannot think. It looks like fairly simple hologram technology being used. A case of having cool kit and having to think of a use for it?
How about: because the US wants people to think that it's next gen weapons platforms are actually aliens?
A rather notable comment under the New York Times "aliens" story
"The U.S. Navy just admitted that we do not have air superiority in our own airspace.
"Then they followed up that statement of fact by floating the possibility that China or Russia have (somehow) leapfrogged our technology by more than 100 years, and that they have had this technology since at least the mid 2000s, which would represent an unprecedented and utterly catastrophic U.S. military and intelligence failure.
"Of course, having that technology since the 2000s implies that they would have begun developing it no later than the 1990s. Given the state of both countries at the time, and the fact that China just recently unveiled their new J-20 fighter jet with pride (widely regarded as being an inferior design based on stolen U.S. technology), and that Russia's military budget is less than 10 percent of U.S. spending, I find that conclusion improbable. And, of course, no one is in full-on panic mode.
"The report flatly states that this is not U.S. technology in origin. If true, it leaves only one plausible possibility."
I wish some of the brighter minds on here like Robert would properly engage themselves in this way. Rather than just saying “I don’t know, unexplained doesn’t mean anything”. Hit us up with your explanations by likelihood, with justification. Because I’ve thought about this for a year now and can’t plausibly come up with anything else than very exotic guesses.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You also missed the summary and main conclusion of this paper, which is that, if these vehicles can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might easily be capable of Faster Than Light travel, solving that How Did They Get Here problem
They are waaaaaaaay in advance of us, if "they" exist
I wholly agree that this all sounds insane, but any explanation of this sounds insane, and it is lots more fun to talk about than dying people in Blackburn
You can say the same about any car accelerating on the slip road for a motorway - if they can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might be capable of faster than light travel...
It's a completely absurd statement that makes a mockery of anything else they might say. Relativistic effects kick in at higher speeds. Rapid acceleration at relatively low speeds says nothing about the ability to defy relativity and travel faster than light.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
It's the US playing games. Why, I cannot think. It looks like fairly simple hologram technology being used. A case of having cool kit and having to think of a use for it?
How about: because the US wants people to think that it's next gen weapons platforms are actually aliens?
You really think America has developed aircraft, with no visible means of propulsion, that can drop vertically from 80,000 feet (essentially space) to near sea level, in under a second?
While lauding it as the most comprehensive FTA negotiated by Norway, it does not compare to EEA membership: While the agreement ensures a predictable framework for Norwegian investors, exporters and services suppliers, it is not as comprehensive as the EEA Agreement. Prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the EEA Agreement provided for free movement of goods, services, capital and people between Norway and the UK. No free trade agreement will provide the same access to the UK market. Nor will it dismantle all the trade barriers that have been removed under the EEA Agreement. The free trade agreement does not set out a common set of rules and principles of mutual recognition that facilitate free movement, which is a cornerstone of the EEA Agreement.
‘The agreement establishes an important framework for supporting and developing economic cooperation between Norway and the UK, but it does not replace the comprehensive arrangements we enjoyed under the EEA Agreement,’ said Minister of Foreign Affairs Ine Eriksen Søreide.
From a Norwegian perspective it's definitely a lot worse than what they had. For the UK it's probably better as it brings in services and qualifications that the single market doesn't cover.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
It's the US playing games. Why, I cannot think. It looks like fairly simple hologram technology being used. A case of having cool kit and having to think of a use for it?
How about: because the US wants people to think that it's next gen weapons platforms are actually aliens?
You really think America has developed aircraft, with no visible means of propulsion, that can drop vertically from 80,000 feet (essentially space) to near sea level, in under a second?
I always find the going down is a hell of a lot easier than going up. What with it not actually requiring propulsion, or anything.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You also missed the summary and main conclusion of this paper, which is that, if these vehicles can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might easily be capable of Faster Than Light travel, solving that How Did They Get Here problem
They are waaaaaaaay in advance of us, if "they" exist
I wholly agree that this all sounds insane, but any explanation of this sounds insane, and it is lots more fun to talk about than dying people in Blackburn
You can say the same about any car accelerating on the slip road for a motorway - if they can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might be capable of faster than light travel...
It's a completely absurd statement that makes a mockery of anything else they might say. Relativistic effects kick in at higher speeds. Rapid acceleration at relatively low speeds says nothing about the ability to defy relativity and travel faster than light.
I posted that document not for its contents as much as for its existence
About a week ago someone on here was saying "Well I'll believe this aliens gibberish when real scientists start doing real scientific papers on them"
And, voila, here is a real scientist doing a real scientific paper on them. Maybe that PB-er is now satisfied, but I doubt it
As for the acceleration thing, I take your point, however I reckon the physicist is extrapolating fairly, if ambitiously, because we know these craft exhibit capabilities well beyond our understanding, so let's think outside the box - we have no choice. The other advantage to his extraordinary thesis is that if he is right, then it means aliens can travel FTL which solves the knotty How Did They Get Here problem
A rather notable comment under the New York Times "aliens" story
"The U.S. Navy just admitted that we do not have air superiority in our own airspace.
"Then they followed up that statement of fact by floating the possibility that China or Russia have (somehow) leapfrogged our technology by more than 100 years, and that they have had this technology since at least the mid 2000s, which would represent an unprecedented and utterly catastrophic U.S. military and intelligence failure.
"Of course, having that technology since the 2000s implies that they would have begun developing it no later than the 1990s. Given the state of both countries at the time, and the fact that China just recently unveiled their new J-20 fighter jet with pride (widely regarded as being an inferior design based on stolen U.S. technology), and that Russia's military budget is less than 10 percent of U.S. spending, I find that conclusion improbable. And, of course, no one is in full-on panic mode.
"The report flatly states that this is not U.S. technology in origin. If true, it leaves only one plausible possibility."
That we have unleashed the spirit of innovation and world beating technology that the dead hand of Brussels has strangled for so long?
While lauding it as the most comprehensive FTA negotiated by Norway, it does not compare to EEA membership: While the agreement ensures a predictable framework for Norwegian investors, exporters and services suppliers, it is not as comprehensive as the EEA Agreement. Prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the EEA Agreement provided for free movement of goods, services, capital and people between Norway and the UK. No free trade agreement will provide the same access to the UK market. Nor will it dismantle all the trade barriers that have been removed under the EEA Agreement. The free trade agreement does not set out a common set of rules and principles of mutual recognition that facilitate free movement, which is a cornerstone of the EEA Agreement.
‘The agreement establishes an important framework for supporting and developing economic cooperation between Norway and the UK, but it does not replace the comprehensive arrangements we enjoyed under the EEA Agreement,’ said Minister of Foreign Affairs Ine Eriksen Søreide.
From a Norwegian perspective it's definitely a lot worse than what they had. For the UK it's probably better as it brings in services and qualifications that the single market doesn't cover.
Do we still get our Christmas tree?
Yes, that's the good news. The bad news is, you've also got to take your mandatory quota of lutefisk.
The fight of the media against Trump is really starting to worry me. Mike posted in a header the other day that he fears for US democracy. I have no such fears unless democracy can credibly seem to have been suppressed. The Republican's had some small case about voting irregularities - although it absolutely was just the normal crap rather than anything untoward, but if the 'left wing' media are seen to be cutting off free speech then it's not a good thing.
I'd quite like it if Trump could just post whatever he likes.
It's much worse now that Trump's Lab Leak theory looks credible, the same theory that Facebook literally prohibited, for a year, until Biden was elected
When Republicans want to say that the election was stolen, they can now point to that perversion of the truth, and they will have a good point.
As much as I will be accused of being biased, that is a good point.
If the lab theory leak gains much more ground, especially around the bio-weapon theory, then it will have big reverberations around the world but particularly in the United States where the media was already on shaky ground with their treatment of the Hunter Biden story.
Added into that mix, it is likely that the election was stolen theory will rear its head again given what is happening in Arizona and Georgia.
I think the US is in for a febrile political atmosphere in 2021.
Biden will have to put the administration at the front of this and really go after China if the evidence continues to build. Could get very serious. Are we going from Spanish Flu, through the roaring twenties to the 1930s in less than two years?
Possibly.
One thing that has got missed is that Russia and India seem to be aligning themselves together. That has implications for China, and I wonder whether that is behind some of the "let's be nice" rhetoric from Xi. He's already pissed off India, the US is increasingly hostile and Russia distancing themselves leaves China in an uncomfortable position
(interestingly, in the 60s, the Russians proposed to the Americans that the two of them nuke China to stop it getting more powerful)
The UFO industry is THE true Perpetual Motion machine.
Because 99.46% of earthlings believe that there indeed IS something out there in outer space.
Who are the arrogant and thick 0.54%?
Those that realise just how big space is and how long it takes to cross those distances?
As well as the number of felescopes trained on, and watching, the Sky that would see something coming here and why would, or how could aliens light years away spot this planet and decide to come here.
Possibly these are time travellers from our future 🤔
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I don’t we think export much.
In fact; I think we exported more French reds in London’s role as a leading global wine brokerage (an industry presumably damaged by Brexit).
I am curious because I’ve just come back from Kent where I sampled two wines; one quite nasty and one Ok (Chapel Downs Kit’s Coty) but both more expensive than foreign alternatives.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You also missed the summary and main conclusion of this paper, which is that, if these vehicles can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might easily be capable of Faster Than Light travel, solving that How Did They Get Here problem
They are waaaaaaaay in advance of us, if "they" exist
I wholly agree that this all sounds insane, but any explanation of this sounds insane, and it is lots more fun to talk about than dying people in Blackburn
You can say the same about any car accelerating on the slip road for a motorway - if they can carry on accelerating as they appear to do, they might be capable of faster than light travel...
It's a completely absurd statement that makes a mockery of anything else they might say. Relativistic effects kick in at higher speeds. Rapid acceleration at relatively low speeds says nothing about the ability to defy relativity and travel faster than light.
I posted that document not for its contents as much as for its existence
About a week ago someone on here was saying "Well I'll believe this aliens gibberish when real scientists start doing real scientific papers on them"
And, voila, here is a real scientist doing a real scientific paper on them. Maybe that PB-er is now satisfied, but I doubt it
As for the acceleration thing, I take your point, however I reckon the physicist is extrapolating fairly, if ambitiously, because we know these craft exhibit capabilities well beyond our understanding, so let's think outside the box - we have no choice. The other advantage to his extraordinary thesis is that if he is right, then it means aliens can travel FTL which solves the knotty How Did They Get Here problem
Speaking as a scientist, I am all-too-familiar with the small number of fellow scientists who, being human, lose their marbles over one thing or another. Making a casual extrapolation that invalidates relativity is not "ambitious", it is invalidating, because there's no evidence to justify it.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
Which is kind of why 'gravity theory' isn't all its cracked up to be.
Australia's largest wine export markets aren't any of its neighbours, its mainland China at number one followed by the United Kingdom in number two.
Being near neighbours helps, but having a quality product or service that people are willing and able to pay for matters much more.
Actually gravity theory holds very well for goods. Yes, other relationships can temper it (specifically the old colonial links you cite), but the econometric evidence is v strong.
Henig is from the "Independent SAGE" school of Brexit.
He's the media's go to contrarian, like Devi Sridhar.
There is no Independent SAGE for trade policy. Yet more bolleaux from self-proclaimed guru Philip Thompson.
Surprised you could not see the nuance of his comment to be honest
The nuance is that Philip has had enough of experts.
Experts have agendas and calling out an agenda by an expert is healthy
For me it is about who makes more sense.
I have read David Henig for a long time and while clearly anti-Brexit he is not hysterical.
Whereas Philip Thompson appears to be some kind of fantasist whose main activity appears to be posting on here. It is not clear what Philip is supposed to be an expert in.
If you are pro Europe than you adopt that nuance
If you are anti Europe like @Philip_Thompson then you adopt his nuance
Fairly reasonable summary do you not think
No.
Trade policy, and expert opinion, is not like choosing a preferred cola brand.
So all of those independent SAGE "experts" fit into which category of cola brand?
Swings and roundabouts, probably.
Sage and ISage both contain people who know their stuff. Sage has better access to real-time data. But ISage is in a safer position to call out government mistakes. Some government officers have crossed the line from advising the government to using their status to defend it (no names, no packdrill). And when ISage flashed red lights in the autumn/winter... They were right. The September/October rise wasn't just Fresher's Flu. December's relaxation was going to come at a huge price.
Bottom lines: 1 Predictions are hard, especially about the future. 2 Advisors advise, Ministers decide. 3 Everyone has an agenda, but becoming an expert in anything is about learning to put that agenda to one side. 4 "Everyone does it" aka the Shoplifter's Defence, doesn't work. There's still a difference between a flawed expert and a partisan hack. One of the tricks partisan hacks like to play is that everyone is like them.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
British wines - particularly the sparkling ones - are excellent, but not cheap.
If you want an £8 bottle of red, you aren't going to be buying British.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
It's the US playing games. Why, I cannot think. It looks like fairly simple hologram technology being used. A case of having cool kit and having to think of a use for it?
Holograms! You lot are hilarious.
If in the coming months we get a speech from Biden about all this, stating categorically that there is ultra technology on earth that is not from the US and not from any other country, what will you say? Hopefully the first thing you will say is “sorry moonshine, sorry Leon, thank you for trying to alert us to the biggest story of human history.”
But then what?
Not just holograms, mate - "fairly simple holograms"
Doh! Why didn't the US Navy, the CIA, the USAF, the DoD, and the Pentagon not realise these are just "fairly simple holograms".. which apparently appear on radar?!
Reminds me back after 9/11 when the loons were saying the aircraft were actually holograms
After 9/11 the loons were saying it had nothing to do with Iraq. Lots of dead bodies and some lucrative contracts for Halliburton later, it turned out the loons were right.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
I did science at college and university and the most common reason for an outlandish result was sensor error or human error.
Very rarely there might be a breakthrough that changes the rules of science but they are vanishingly uncommon.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
The first 2 mean you haven’t really addressed any of the expanding evidence. Have you?
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
British wines - particularly the sparkling ones - are excellent, but not cheap.
If you want an £8 bottle of red, you aren't going to be buying British.
And I suspect that for a lot of UK wine drinkers, even an £8 bottle is a bit on the "ooh that's a bit posh, what are you after darling?" side.
Splendid as English wine can be (we had it at our wedding), it's not something that we can sensibly produce in large amounts at mass-market prices.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
British wines - particularly the sparkling ones - are excellent, but not cheap.
If you want an £8 bottle of red, you aren't going to be buying British.
And I suspect that for a lot of UK wine drinkers, even an £8 bottle is a bit on the "ooh that's a bit posh, what are you after darling?" side.
Splendid as English wine can be (we had it at our wedding), it's not something that we can sensibly produce in large amounts at mass-market prices.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
British wines - particularly the sparkling ones - are excellent, but not cheap.
If you want an £8 bottle of red, you aren't going to be buying British.
And I suspect that for a lot of UK wine drinkers, even an £8 bottle is a bit on the "ooh that's a bit posh, what are you after darling?" side.
Splendid as English wine can be (we had it at our wedding), it's not something that we can sensibly produce in large amounts at mass-market prices.
Completely agreed. Its not something we have a competitive advantage in.
My favourite wines at the same price point are Australian followed by Argentinian.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
It's a scale. Dolphins and chimps are incredibly close to us in terms of intelligence.
And yet we have absolutely no way of communicating with them in any meaningful way.
The intelligence gap between the interstellar travelling aliens and us is not going to be that caused a few percent of DNA being different, it'll be orders of magnitude.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
The first 2 mean you haven’t really addressed any of the expanding evidence. Have you?
Here is a new quote from someone with top level intelligence clearance ruling out Robert’s (2 - sensor error:
RUBIO on UAP w/ Fox: “People immediately start thinking about extraterrestrials and little green men. We're not at that stage here. What we're saying is there are things that are not ours -- there are things that are not ours flying over military installations we don’t know what they are. They're talking about these things flying around. We just don't know what they are. We need to know what they are.”
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
You’d be surprised how many smart rich Brits are unaware that England now makes superb sparkling wine
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Far more plausible than aliens travelled across the universe to do nothing other than play a game of Ding-Dong Ditch with the Pentagon for half a century.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Far more plausible than aliens travelled across the universe to do nothing other than play a game of Ding-Dong Ditch with the Pentagon for half a century.
Infinitely more plausible. If we ignore the evidence
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
Have you never seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
If humpback whales can communicate with alien species via a probe than nearly destroyed Earth then I'm fairly certain dolphins can send probes to other planets.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Are you retarded?
I mean that in all seriousness.
There have probably been more than 10 million flight hours flown by military personnel in the last four decades.
So, a few hours out of 10 million is literally the exact opposite of CONTINUOUS.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Far more plausible than aliens travelled across the universe to do nothing other than play a game of Ding-Dong Ditch with the Pentagon for half a century.
Are you a religious man? I’m just trying to understand why you think it implausible. It really isn’t.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Which is itself childish nonsense. Father Christmas does not exist. Aliens very probably DO exist. Some experts would say almost certainly. We are merely discussing their location last Thursday or whatever
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Are you retarded?
I mean that in all seriousness.
There have probably been more than 10 million flight hours flown by military personnel in the last four decades.
So, a few hours out of 10 million is literally the exact opposite of CONTINUOUS.
Except you’re still not engaging with the data are you. Like for example the recorded incident now detailed by the Pentagon that repeated in the same air space every day for 8 months.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
Have you never seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
If humpback whales can communicate with alien species via a probe than nearly destroyed Earth then I'm fairly certain dolphins can send probes to other planets.
I think you’re trying to Klingon to a fantasy there.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Far more plausible than aliens travelled across the universe to do nothing other than play a game of Ding-Dong Ditch with the Pentagon for half a century.
Are you a religious man? I’m just trying to understand why you think it implausible. It really isn’t.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Far more plausible than aliens travelled across the universe to do nothing other than play a game of Ding-Dong Ditch with the Pentagon for half a century.
Are you a religious man? I’m just trying to understand why you think it implausible. It really isn’t.
No, I believe in science and evidence and logic.
None of which are on your side.
I actually thought, given all you say about religion, that it was quite funny somebody asked if you are religious.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
So try and come up with a credible explanation for what we now see before us. Knock yourself out
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
But you’re not thinking about it properly. Explain why those explanations fit with the pattern of evidence and how plausible they are.
(1) Fits all the evidence except the lack of known technology. Not especially plausible. (2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible. (3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
2? Really? A continuous sensor error over decades that involves multiple sensor systems simultaneously and many highly credible eye witnesses reporting the same things and, by the way, when the US navy and pentagon investigated all this they didn’t think ‘wait, could it be sensor error’ and instead they sent a report to Congress admitting a total failure on their part to command US airspace and keep Americans safe?
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
Are you retarded?
I mean that in all seriousness.
There have probably been more than 10 million flight hours flown by military personnel in the last four decades.
So, a few hours out of 10 million is literally the exact opposite of CONTINUOUS.
Except you’re still not engaging with the data are you. Like for example the recorded incident now detailed by the Pentagon that repeated in the same air space every day for 8 months.
He hasn’t read any of it. Let him slink away, to do his research. Do not be harsh. He’s probably busy optimising his unicycle parking software thingy
Having seen SNOWFALL's Oaks win, an alien landing in the middle of the Derby wouldn't be the most dramatic event of the meeting.
On to more mundane matters and the rising case numbers will concern some. I note the areas where the infections seem strongest and astonishingly, East London, an area where there are literally hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated adults, is so far dodging the Delta bullet.
I'm astonished but there you are - perhaps it's only a matter of time but those working to break down the anti-vaccination walls in all communities (and let's not "assume" the WWC doesn't have its share of anti-vaxxers) still have a little time.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
You’d be surprised how many smart rich Brits are unaware that England now makes superb sparkling wine
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
@DarrenGBNews UK has signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein
Government claim agreement, is worth £21bn and will "slash tariffs on high-quality British food and farm products and support jobs in every area of our country"
Sounds like it goes further than the deal we had with them as EU members too?
Liz Truss really has done a fantastic job, and Brexit is really going as well as I could have hoped for.
‘David Henig, a former UK government trade official who is now director of the UK Trade Policy Project, said: “This UK-EEA free trade agreement provides better trading conditions than World Trade Organization terms, though with considerably more trade barriers when compared with the previous single market relationship.
“There are some useful provisions for UK business such as on professional qualifications or digital trade, but there will also be many difficulties as we see with the similar UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement. Overall this is quite a standard free trade agreement, with limited economic value.”’
Henig is from the "Independent SAGE" school of Brexit.
He's the media's go to contrarian, like Devi Sridhar.
There is no Independent SAGE for trade policy. Yet more bolleaux from self-proclaimed guru Philip Thompson.
Surprised you could not see the nuance of his comment to be honest
The nuance is that Philip has had enough of experts.
Experts have agendas and calling out an agenda by an expert is healthy
For me it is about who makes more sense.
I have read David Henig for a long time and while clearly anti-Brexit he is not hysterical.
Whereas Philip Thompson appears to be some kind of fantasist whose main activity appears to be posting on here. It is not clear what Philip is supposed to be an expert in.
If you are pro Europe than you adopt that nuance
If you are anti Europe like @Philip_Thompson then you adopt his nuance
English fizz is becoming fashionable on the continent. Or it was pre covid. By fashionable I mean: stocked in very high end restaurants. It is good, it is exotic, it has a snob value. Ticks all the boxes. And they can add a massive mark-up because no one is sure how much it should cost
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
You’d be surprised how many smart rich Brits are unaware that England now makes superb sparkling wine
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Which is itself childish nonsense. Father Christmas does not exist. Aliens very probably DO exist. Some experts would say almost certainly. We are merely discussing their location last Thursday or whatever
Indeed. To simplify the Drake equation,
1) Does life exist beyond earth? - yes with certainty pretty much
2) Are we the only life that has evolved to a technological level? - possible but implausible
2) Is insterstellar travel possible for technological life and/or their probes? - sure, it all depends on acceptable timescales for the journey and / or technology improvement curves, as well as the average lifetime of a technological civilisation
3) Would a civilisation advanced enough to make an interstellar journey either with probes or in body be interested in other planets with life (much less intelligent life)? - difficult for us to comment but based upon our own curiosity, it’s hard to think of a reason why not
Topping said: "Aliens still? Dear God. Pun intended. Why have they not made contact, eh? EH?"
Well, one possibility (assuming that they are here) is that they're waiting for us to commit pan-suicide. Anyway, If they're here at all we can hardly expect them to view us with respect.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
You’d be surprised how many smart rich Brits are unaware that England now makes superb sparkling wine
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
Quite spenny Nyetimber.
It is. A bottle of the classic cuvee rose is ~£40. About the same as Pol Roger. But it’s better than the French plonk likesay, so VALUE
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Which is itself childish nonsense. Father Christmas does not exist. Aliens very probably DO exist. Some experts would say almost certainly. We are merely discussing their location last Thursday or whatever
Indeed. To simplify the Drake equation,
1) Does life exist beyond earth? - yes with certainty pretty much
2) Are we the only life that has evolved to a technological level? - possible but implausible
2) Is insterstellar travel possible for technological life and/or their probes? - sure, it all depends on acceptable timescales for the journey and / or technology improvement curves, as well as the average lifetime of a technological civilisation
3) Would a civilisation advanced enough to make an interstellar journey either with probes or in body be interested in other planets with life (much less intelligent life)? - difficult for us to comment but based upon our own curiosity, it’s hard to think of a reason why not
So you're getting towards the general area of the Fermi Paradox there.
And she’s just been appointed head of OFSTED for two more years despite her long track record of ignorance, failure and stupidity.
My 18 year old granddaughter has left school already and expects to start at Leeds Univercity in September
How would she react if told to go back for six more weeks?
I expect a very sharp response to get lost
Your granddaughter evidently has excellent manners.
The best one I came across were the three year 11 boys who got themselves expelled (by threatening to punch the Deputy Head in the face) so they could get an extra two weeks’ holiday.
I think if they were recalled to school they would all form a disorderly queue...
And she’s just been appointed head of OFSTED for two more years despite her long track record of ignorance, failure and stupidity.
My 18 year old granddaughter has left school already and expects to start at Leeds Univercity in September
How would she react if told to go back for six more weeks?
I expect a very sharp response to get lost
Your granddaughter evidently has excellent manners.
The best one I came across were the three year 11 boys who got themselves expelled (by threatening to punch the Deputy Head in the face) so they could get an extra two weeks’ holiday.
I think if they were recalled to school they would all form a disorderly queue...
I was being polite but your wider criticism is spot on
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
You are thinking about this properly. But your conclusion is out. Why do you think the first contact would be a startling and explicit “hello show me to your leader”?
If intelligent life is relatively abundant, our visitors would be quite practiced at introductions. And most likely, they’d have learnt that a few decades of teasing a bit of leg and then the suspenders before undoing the bra, is a whole lot less disruptive to complex societies like ours than just walking up naked and banging on the door. After all these decades of drip drip it’s still going to be mighty unsettling for most people if it’s confirmed.
OK.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
We are yet to find a new animal species with complex intelligence. Maybe Seti@home is the next step?
It's pretty arrogant to assume that we will have complex intelligence compared to those species and civilizations that have conquered interstellar travel and are not bound by the laws of physics as we know them.
Sure. It’s a scale. Dolphins don’t send probes to other planets. Chimps don’t create the Higgs Boson.
Have you never seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
If humpback whales can communicate with alien species via a probe than nearly destroyed Earth then I'm fairly certain dolphins can send probes to other planets.
Oh for goodness sake how many times do I have to explain this. It is not the dolphins it's the mice.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Which is itself childish nonsense. Father Christmas does not exist. Aliens very probably DO exist. Some experts would say almost certainly. We are merely discussing their location last Thursday or whatever
Indeed. To simplify the Drake equation,
1) Does life exist beyond earth? - yes with certainty pretty much
2) Are we the only life that has evolved to a technological level? - possible but implausible
2) Is insterstellar travel possible for technological life and/or their probes? - sure, it all depends on acceptable timescales for the journey and / or technology improvement curves, as well as the average lifetime of a technological civilisation
3) Would a civilisation advanced enough to make an interstellar journey either with probes or in body be interested in other planets with life (much less intelligent life)? - difficult for us to comment but based upon our own curiosity, it’s hard to think of a reason why not
So you're getting towards the general area of the Fermi Paradox there.
Which of course just tells us that we're missing something important. Olber's Paradox is my favourite example. Then there's Proebsting's paradox in a betting context.
There is of course the background issue of possible incompleteness/unprovability. I don't think that these apply, but as such it's hard to dismiss all paradoxes.
"We have carefully considered a handful of encounters with UAVs of unknown nature and origin. Reports of the encounters have described these UAVs as having “amazing” or “impossible” flight characteristics. In this paper, we objectively quantified the observed accelerations. In some situations, the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions.
PARKLIFE!
"However, in each of these cases the eyewitnesses were trained observers, and these encounters were selected because they involved multiple witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from pilots and passengers, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly minimizes such risks.
PARKLIFE!
"The facts that the estimated accelerations of encounters spanning over 50 years all fall within two orders of magnitude of one another and that they are far greater in magnitude than one would expect serve to further minimize the risks of fabrication or exaggeration. Furthermore, our acceleration estimates are similar to previous estimates of accelerations measured in other encounters, such as the accelerations ranging from 175m/s2 to 4407m/s2 (17.9g to 450g) estimated from radar data obtained during the 1968 Minot AFB encounter in North Dakota, USA [28].
PARKLIFE!
"In addition, the German physicist Hermann Oberth, one of the founding fathers of astronautics and rocketry, gave a lecture on UFOs in 1954 in which he reported the top measured speed to be 19km/s [29], or Mach 55, which is comparable to the maximum speed of ∼Mach 60 we estimated in Section 2.4.1 from the radar observations of Senior Chief Day on the USS Princeton during the 2004 Nimitz encounters."
All the people So many people And hey all go hand-in-hand Hand-in-hand through their parklife
Know what I mean?
The recent moves in the US have been quite baffling. Your points above - if one of them is based on facts it'd be good (not suggesting that you're not accurately reporting of course).
The problem of it is why? The chances of ET being roughly in our technological league is almost zero. We've evloved over billions of years, but the technical window has been in the thousands. Why would they coincide.
The idea that ET needs to mess about flying drone like things in the oceans and is just a few steps ahead of us, and doesn't have the technology to just observe remotely or not be seen, well that's sort of incredible (in the literal sense).
They're out there, but I would be astonished if we spotted them. Nearly 100 percent chance is that first contact will be them saying hello. (And incidentally, as I posted some weeks ago all this chaff could be the governments sizing us up for the real thing - hugely low probability, but more likely than most ET stuff)
Yes: that's very much my view.
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
I think @Leon needs to go somewhere hot on holiday for a few weeks or get laid.
Preferably both.
I definitely need both. However I am also right about this, and have been right for some time, thanks to moonshine alerting me a few months back
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
It's because of that that I think all this UFO, ghosts, and aliens stuff is hokum.
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Which is itself childish nonsense. Father Christmas does not exist. Aliens very probably DO exist. Some experts would say almost certainly. We are merely discussing their location last Thursday or whatever
Indeed. To simplify the Drake equation,
1) Does life exist beyond earth? - yes with certainty pretty much
2) Are we the only life that has evolved to a technological level? - possible but implausible
2) Is insterstellar travel possible for technological life and/or their probes? - sure, it all depends on acceptable timescales for the journey and / or technology improvement curves, as well as the average lifetime of a technological civilisation
3) Would a civilisation advanced enough to make an interstellar journey either with probes or in body be interested in other planets with life (much less intelligent life)? - difficult for us to comment but based upon our own curiosity, it’s hard to think of a reason why not
So you're getting towards the general area of the Fermi Paradox there.
Fermi asked “where are they all?. The paradox was because they should be everywhere.
The answer might be: right under our noses all along
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
That's the difference between the salt of the earth patriotic ale drinker and the sneering metropolitan wine snob.
RUBIO on UAP w/ Fox: “People immediately start thinking about extraterrestrials and little green men. We're not at that stage here. What we're saying is there are things that are not ours -- there are things that are not ours flying over military installations we don’t know what they are. They're talking about these things flying around. We just don't know what they are. We need to know what they are.”
I don't like Rubio's politics at all, but as a member of the Gang of Eight he's one of the few people who gets properly briefed about all the crazy stuff the US intelligence community gets up to. I don't see how anyone can blithely dismiss what he says, there are few people in a better position to know what is going on.
RUBIO on UAP w/ Fox: “People immediately start thinking about extraterrestrials and little green men. We're not at that stage here. What we're saying is there are things that are not ours -- there are things that are not ours flying over military installations we don’t know what they are. They're talking about these things flying around. We just don't know what they are. We need to know what they are.”
I don't like Rubio's politics at all, but as a member of the Gang of Eight he's one of the few people who gets properly briefed about all the crazy stuff the US intelligence community gets up to. I don't see how anyone can blithely dismiss what he says, there are few people in a better position to know what is going on.
That's easy: (3) from Robert's list.
An ominous but hard to pin down here, a knowing phrase there but nothing concrete - now you've got whatever appropriations you want approved.
Weirdly, Norway is one of the main importers of English wine.
Isn't that all the Skandis, except one. I see to recall 3 from 4.
I guess thinking about it, it makes sense?
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
I'm surprised that the domestic wine market doesn't absorb the entirety of English wine production. I'm amazed that we export any at all.
I’m surprised how little there is available in the high street. English Wine really is pretty good.
See above. I suspect price/quality ratio is the issue which in turn is a factor of still low volumes.
But still, for most other product categories you will have food plastered with the union flag. I'd have thought that a degree of patriotic purchasing, plus the novelty value, would create a fair amount of demand for locally-produced wines. Even Lidl, for example, are pretty good at stocking local ranges of beers, so you often have quite different beers stocked in different Lidls around the country.
You’d be surprised how many smart rich Brits are unaware that England now makes superb sparkling wine
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
Quite spenny Nyetimber.
It is. A bottle of the classic cuvee rose is ~£40. About the same as Pol Roger. But it’s better than the French plonk likesay, so VALUE
It's very nice for sure but doesn't beat a bottle of Bolly.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
Statistically the chances of aliens being only a little bit more scientifically advanced than us is close to zero.
Life on earth has evolved over billions of years. Humans with technology have been around for about 20 minutes.
If aliens exist - and they probably do - then the chances of them (a) being very close to us in the galaxy, and (b) only being slightly more advanced than us, and (c) deciding to let us see them via gyrations in the sky sky seems pretty small. Certainly well under 1 in 100,000,000.
As you say, the money has to be on them being so far advanced relative to us, that we won't see them until they say "hello".
It's a completely absurd statement that makes a mockery of anything else they might say. Relativistic effects kick in at higher speeds. Rapid acceleration at relatively low speeds says nothing about the ability to defy relativity and travel faster than light.
Gravity theory suggests our nearest neighbours should be the major importers, but France et al are obviously not going to be importing English wine.
So, when we find a new animal species, do we go to extraordinary lengths to only show them a little glimpse of a human?
No.
We're likely to be so ridiculously far behind, technologically and intellectually, that the gap would be a like Albert Einstein vs a woodlouse.
Why would they bother introducing themselves slowly?
And, ummm..., if they were going to introduce themselves slowly, wouldn't appearing on something like SETI@HOME be about 100,000 more "showing their leg" than gyrating in the upper atmosphere near navy aviators?
Preferably both.
About a week ago someone on here was saying "Well I'll believe this aliens gibberish when real scientists start doing real scientific papers on them"
And, voila, here is a real scientist doing a real scientific paper on them. Maybe that PB-er is now satisfied, but I doubt it
As for the acceleration thing, I take your point, however I reckon the physicist is extrapolating fairly, if ambitiously, because we know these craft exhibit capabilities well beyond our understanding, so let's think outside the box - we have no choice. The other advantage to his extraordinary thesis is that if he is right, then it means aliens can travel FTL which solves the knotty How Did They Get Here problem
One thing that has got missed is that Russia and India seem to be aligning themselves together. That has implications for China, and I wonder whether that is behind some of the "let's be nice" rhetoric from Xi. He's already pissed off India, the US is increasingly hostile and Russia distancing themselves leaves China in an uncomfortable position
(interestingly, in the 60s, the Russians proposed to the Americans that the two of them nuke China to stop it getting more powerful)
Possibly these are time travellers from our future 🤔
By right I mean - this is a major major story which needs to be addressed seriously, not laughed off with nervous giggles.
You're a smart guy, surely you can now see that this is pretty big
Australia's largest wine export markets aren't any of its neighbours, its mainland China at number one followed by the United Kingdom in number two.
Being near neighbours helps, but having a quality product or service that people are willing and able to pay for matters much more.
In fact; I think we exported more French reds in London’s role as a leading global wine brokerage (an industry presumably damaged by Brexit).
I am curious because I’ve just come back from Kent where I sampled two wines; one quite nasty and one Ok (Chapel Downs Kit’s Coty) but both more expensive than foreign alternatives.
Cannot be taken remotely seriously.
Yes, other relationships can temper it (specifically the old colonial links you cite), but the econometric evidence is v strong.
For services, not so much.
Sage and ISage both contain people who know their stuff. Sage has better access to real-time data. But ISage is in a safer position to call out government mistakes. Some government officers have crossed the line from advising the government to using their status to defend it (no names, no packdrill). And when ISage flashed red lights in the autumn/winter... They were right. The September/October rise wasn't just Fresher's Flu. December's relaxation was going to come at a huge price.
Bottom lines:
1 Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
2 Advisors advise, Ministers decide.
3 Everyone has an agenda, but becoming an expert in anything is about learning to put that agenda to one side.
4 "Everyone does it" aka the Shoplifter's Defence, doesn't work. There's still a difference between a flawed expert and a partisan hack. One of the tricks partisan hacks like to play is that everyone is like them.
(2) It's sensor error
(3) It's disinformation
That's three.
I realise none of them are conspiracy theory enough for you, so I'll try and come out with some alternative explanations are that are more convoluted and implausible if you like.
If you want an £8 bottle of red, you aren't going to be buying British.
(2) Fits all evidence. Extremely plausible.
(3) Fits all evidence. Plausible.
(99) Aliens: A million times less plausible than (1).
Very rarely there might be a breakthrough that changes the rules of science but they are vanishingly uncommon.
The first 2 mean you haven’t really addressed any of the expanding evidence. Have you?
You wouldn't get a grown man admitting to believing in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Aslan the Lion, and to me it's the same thing.
Splendid as English wine can be (we had it at our wedding), it's not something that we can sensibly produce in large amounts at mass-market prices.
My favourite wines at the same price point are Australian followed by Argentinian.
You and Robert ‘genius’ SMITHSON think it’s that sensor error?
And yet we have absolutely no way of communicating with them in any meaningful way.
The intelligence gap between the interstellar travelling aliens and us is not going to be that caused a few percent of DNA being different, it'll be orders of magnitude.
https://twitter.com/kelliemeyernews/status/1400849741710303233?s=21
RUBIO on UAP w/ Fox: “People immediately start thinking about extraterrestrials and little green men. We're not at that stage here. What we're saying is there are things that are not ours -- there are things that are not ours flying over military installations we don’t know what they are. They're talking about these things flying around. We just don't know what they are. We need to know what they are.”
I took a good bottle of Nyetimber to a Highgate barbecue recently where everyone was drinking pol roger at least, and they tutted at my choice of wine and then they drank it and said ‘ok, it’s better than the pol roger. Much better’
If humpback whales can communicate with alien species via a probe than nearly destroyed Earth then I'm fairly certain dolphins can send probes to other planets.
I mean that in all seriousness.
There have probably been more than 10 million flight hours flown by military personnel in the last four decades.
So, a few hours out of 10 million is literally the exact opposite of CONTINUOUS.
None of which are on your side.
2. Anyone forking out £17 to watch Logan Paul get twatted around by Pretty Boy Floyd?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/03/schools-should-not-send-exam-year-pupils-home-early-says-ofsted-head
And she’s just been appointed head of OFSTED for two more years despite her long track record of ignorance, failure and stupidity.
Having seen SNOWFALL's Oaks win, an alien landing in the middle of the Derby wouldn't be the most dramatic event of the meeting.
On to more mundane matters and the rising case numbers will concern some. I note the areas where the infections seem strongest and astonishingly, East London, an area where there are literally hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated adults, is so far dodging the Delta bullet.
I'm astonished but there you are - perhaps it's only a matter of time but those working to break down the anti-vaccination walls in all communities (and let's not "assume" the WWC doesn't have its share of anti-vaxxers) still have a little time.
Norway
USA
"Asia"
Denmark
Sweden
Total exports: 8% of production.
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/03/the-5-biggest-export-markets-for-uk-wines/
I think it's very premium.
I wonder if imports avoid some of the swinging 'keep 'em miserable' alcohol taxes
1) Does life exist beyond earth? - yes with certainty pretty much
2) Are we the only life that has evolved to a technological level? - possible but implausible
2) Is insterstellar travel possible for technological life and/or their probes? - sure, it all depends on acceptable timescales for the journey and / or technology improvement curves, as well as the average lifetime of a technological civilisation
3) Would a civilisation advanced enough to make an interstellar journey either with probes or in body be interested in other planets with life (much less intelligent life)? - difficult for us to comment but based upon our own curiosity, it’s hard to think of a reason why not
Well, one possibility (assuming that they are here) is that they're waiting for us to commit pan-suicide.
Anyway, If they're here at all we can hardly expect them to view us with respect.
It's 7th February 1991 Top of the Pops on BBC4.
Mind you she was top student in her school last year and her tutors have already said she should get her grades without a problem
https://www.statista.com/statistics/303550/uk-united-kingdom-wine-exports-value-annually/
Checking, Laithwaites have about 10 UK wines in their range, at about £25.
Which would actually fit with a bottle or two in my quarterly order. At the top end. Tempting.
The best one I came across were the three year 11 boys who got themselves expelled (by threatening to punch the Deputy Head in the face) so they could get an extra two weeks’ holiday.
I think if they were recalled to school they would all form a disorderly queue...
There is of course the background issue of possible incompleteness/unprovability. I don't think that these apply, but as such it's hard to dismiss all paradoxes.
The answer might be: right under our noses all along
Total wine production is shy of 100,000 hectolitres. Apparently we export 8% of that.
Which is about 10,000 bottles.
Edit; I am out by a factor of 10. 100,000 bottles.
Incredibly niche product.
An ominous but hard to pin down here, a knowing phrase there but nothing concrete - now you've got whatever appropriations you want approved.
"Westminster voting intention:
CON: 46% (+3)
LAB: 30% (+1)
GRN: 9% (+1)
LDEM: 6% (-2)
REFUK: 2% (-1)
via
@YouGov
, 02 - 03 Jun
Chgs. w/ 28 May"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1400751176136728579
"NEW – Westminster Voting Intention:
CON 41% (-2)
LAB 33% (-)
LD 9% (-1)
GRN 6% (+1)
SNP 4% (-1)
OTH 6% (+1)
1,533 respondents, 1-2 June '21. Changes w/ 27-28 May '21."
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1400781950093344769