It is probably too late to influence the upcoming US government UFO report, and even if it isn’t I’m probably not high enough status to do so, but if I had any influence I have one main recommendation to its authors, and to authors of similar future reports:
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb wants to solve the UFO question once and for all:
> the core of the project would be a worldwide network of sky monitors, hundreds in all. Each dome-shaped unit, roughly the size of an umbrella, will contain infrared and optical cameras arranged like a fly's eye to capture the full expanse of sky overhead. Audio sensors and radio antennas will listen at other frequencies. Running 24 hours a day, the monitors are meant to record everything that moves through the sky, day and night: from birds and balloons to insects, airliners, and drones. Artificial intelligence algorithms, trained to discard known objects like birds in favor of fast-moving spherical and lens-shaped objects,
What's with the hate for drug users? Ok, maybe if you've just had 10 hits of acid your testimony might not be reliable but I don't see anything particularly unreliable about testimony from your average american who has ingested opiates, amphetamines etc…
(To be clear I understand the point you were trying to make just found it amusing to nitpick a bit.)
Clearly there are specific, individual reports that Robin has in mind, since he provides a specific confidence value for them: "Well over a thousand, and maybe over a million." But this evaluation isn't of much use without a naming the reports by which this number was calculated.
People report seeing Weird Stuff when there isn't any actual Weird Stuff often enough that hearing about a report of Weird Stuff does very little to shift my probability estimates. Now, sometimes there really is Weird Stuff to be seen (like the formerly classified Roswell radar reflector experiment) but even a very convincing sounding report is not going to change my opinions very much. After all, you can create an airtight argument for anything by simply lying about the data.
I’m not an expert on UFO report details, and I will defer to experts when available, but my impression is that that for the ten “hardest to explain” UFO events, this last likelihood value will be huge. Well over a thousand, and maybe over a million.
Are you willing to specifically name these UFO reports that you're basing your opinions on?
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb wants to solve the UFO question once and for all:
> the core of the project would be a worldwide network of sky monitors, hundreds in all. Each dome-shaped unit, roughly the size of an umbrella, will contain infrared and optical cameras arranged like a fly's eye to capture the full expanse of sky overhead. Audio sensors and radio antennas will listen at other frequencies. Running 24 hours a day, the monitors are meant to record everything that moves through the sky, day and night: from birds and balloons to insects, airliners, and drones. Artificial intelligence algorithms, trained to discard known objects like birds in favor of fast-moving spherical and lens-shaped objects,
I found it via /. more links there:https://science.slashdot.or...
What's with the hate for drug users? Ok, maybe if you've just had 10 hits of acid your testimony might not be reliable but I don't see anything particularly unreliable about testimony from your average american who has ingested opiates, amphetamines etc…
(To be clear I understand the point you were trying to make just found it amusing to nitpick a bit.)
He’s referring to the (then-upcoming) report about UFOs by the US gov’t.
Clearly there are specific, individual reports that Robin has in mind, since he provides a specific confidence value for them: "Well over a thousand, and maybe over a million." But this evaluation isn't of much use without a naming the reports by which this number was calculated.
People report seeing Weird Stuff when there isn't any actual Weird Stuff often enough that hearing about a report of Weird Stuff does very little to shift my probability estimates. Now, sometimes there really is Weird Stuff to be seen (like the formerly classified Roswell radar reflector experiment) but even a very convincing sounding report is not going to change my opinions very much. After all, you can create an airtight argument for anything by simply lying about the data.
Good ideas.
I’m not an expert on UFO report details, and I will defer to experts when available, but my impression is that that for the ten “hardest to explain” UFO events, this last likelihood value will be huge. Well over a thousand, and maybe over a million.
Are you willing to specifically name these UFO reports that you're basing your opinions on?