Request For Feedback

[Blabyboy]

I should correct my statement. Vallee's talk was not about ufos pe se. But it did sidle broach the subject of the paranormal and how it might be explained by a physics based on information instead of energy. Posted here before but still a fantastic video.

Really interesting video, thanks for posting. I can see why the idea of information instead of energy is interesting to Vallee, especially coming from a software dev background. I can imagine a very basic analog of classes and objects mimicing the information(classes) and the actual coincidences manifesting(objects). The point made about his clicker being a constantly updating instantiation generated from information, but not the same original instantiation has such an easy read across to concepts in the software dev world.

The one thing I struggle with is his prediction that information will be the underlying element of physics in 2061. Mainly, in that energy still has to be used to convert information to an instantiation of the information template being used - perhaps I don't get something here? I see it more as the two theories will be equal, there will be an equation(s) that takes some initial inputs and will convert from one method to the other and vice versa.

I wonder if taking his argument to a logical conclusion, if all things are information, and that information can be instantiated 'n' number of times then could we arrive at a place where an individual never 'dies'. And also, if energy is immutable - it transforms from one form to another, then could information be immutable and set in that arrangement never subject to entropy? i.e. there could be a template of you in perpetuity ----> dopplegangers?

Anyway, better stop now before someone infers I've been on the crack pipe too much

Bb

 

[Blabyboy]

NUFORC and MUFON and CUFOS actively collect sighting reports. Of the three, my support would be for CUFOS. They already have an amazing database called UFOCAT that can be ordered on CD. USI has over 2500 members in about 22 countries, but I seldom personally hear from our members, and many have fallen off the map. Once in a while people will express an interest in volunteering, but when they realize how much work is involved they typically bow out, or they go on to pursue something independent ( which is still cool ), but that still leaves me to maintain and upgrade the website on my own. Someday it would be nice to see USI publish a collection of the best cases ( classic, obscure, new whatever ) individually outlined and classified under the Hynek/Vallee and USI Overall Confidence Rating system. The Paracast would also be an excellent place for open discussion prior to selecting and publishing the finished articles.

Looked over them all again to refresh myself.

cufos - the database looks kinda old and it's hard to mine. They're obviously pushing the CD element, but the page for that states that it has problems with some windows version. It's great for looking back in time, the other two are better for the here and now of what's occurring.
nuforc - has some 4 categories to search by and the reports are posted monthly by the looks of it, it could be mined
mufon - has a nicer search in that you define more filters for it and the results are not bad, it could be mined.

They all have good information but they don't appear to make it easy mine it in an easy way to discern trends to patterns. If they could be made to collate and then display - that would be good. The value they each add is their commentary and interpretation on cases based on their knowledge and experience, so YMM will Vary here.

In terms of USI, how often do you engage with your members? What happens if you disappear? Do you have good relationships with the other sites mentioned?

Bb

 

[Randall]

cufos - the database looks kinda old and it's hard to mine. They're obviously pushing the CD element, but the page for that states that it has problems with some windows version. It's great for looking back in time ...

If I remember correctly the CUFOS database was updated to MS Access, which has a wealth of charting and reporting capabilities. I'm using Access 2010, and it will import anything all the way back to Office 95. But then again, I've never actually seen the CUFOS database, so like I said, it could still be a case of garbage in = garbage out. I should order it just to find out.

The USI search isn't nearly as sophisticated as you are envisioning. While it could handle thousands of entries, the keywords need to be input manually into the database file, and all that it can return are the results matching those snippets ( no charts or maps ). But then again, how many parameters do we really need? The keyword database for each entry can hold dozens of words. After the type, rating, location, time, place, names, and a short summary, there isn't anything relevant left. We don't need a chart on how many time the word "and" or "said" or "there" were used in the report. The whole idea is to distill out what matters.

If someone really wants a pie chart, it wouldn't be too hard to run a few searches and plug the numbers into whatever chart making program they have. Theoretically a secondary set of scripts could even be created to output the results on a dynamic online chart. But that's way down the road from where we're at now.

 

[boomerang]

Can anyone here be more specific regarding what kinds of correlates are being sought? Is the data fed into the app which is then turned loose to look for whatever correlates it may find? Or is it asked to search for specifics such as geometric shapes, sequential reports of incidents lying along geographical map lines etc? A example or two might help to clarify.

 

[LoremIpsum]

Boomerang, as but one very limited example that has plagued my interest thought this... I seek to plug a sightings/event dataset into ESRI ArcGIS, one that carries at least date, time, timezone, event type, sighted position, sighted vector of travel, sighted altitude, sighted speed, and other details regarding craft characteristics that can be had. I would hope this data already takes into account filtering and cleaning against measures of validity previously agreed, and that it represents a large number of events, covers as much time and distance as possible. I would then begin to develop travel corridor representations, effectively in 3d though the z axis may have to output as a characteristic to 2d formats. This information is the. Ready to begin grouping and pattern analysis against various event properties as well as other data layers to look for any correlations or period based patterns.

 

[boomerang]

Lorem, I'm not sure I completely comprehend your methods, but sounds like you have done your homework. Since many sightings of articulated objects in the sky end with an abrupt departure in a straight line direction, I have sometimes wondered if something as simple as reported direction of departure (N,S,E,W) for credible sightings might indicate more than randomness. It sounds like this might be covered within the larger statistical framework you describe. At any rate, good luck and please let us know how things are progressing.

 

[LoremIpsum]

I agree with some of the above comments, particularly with regard to the need to filter and prepare data for an individual analysis. I suspect that while there may be a lot of data, getting from 'it went over there real fast!' to a state where we have coordinates and cardinal vectors and altitudes will be hard work. And too, this interpretation introduces error and bias... There is never anything straightforward about this sort of thing.

And especially given the respect I have for BB's contribution and his obvious talent I want to be clear here. I'm not suggesting a standard not be developed... Not at all. I'm merely expressing that I don't believe starting there will bring the desired outcome. I suggest the standard would be a side effect of the goal... To demonstrate the advanced visualisations. It is this outcome that should inform what is needed in the standard, rather than the standard informing what analysis is possible. This approach will focus effort on the standard to what is useful defined by an actual need, as opposed to a broader theoretical attempt to model the whole of a phenomenon that 'denies itself' and is arguably infinite in definition. Besides, development of a standard does not overcome the challenges that exist regarding the resources required to actually get analysis happening. Developing standards is free.

As for the concern regarding development of a closed system... I take that comment on board. I need to think on that a bit. A data standard that evolves should certainly be open and accessible. The truths that might arise from an analysis paid for by an investor however are likely to require restriction. A willingness to release any part of that analysis or the nature of the technique implemented would come only at the discretion of the sponsor. I suspect the gold key lies in some hybrid of the two positions.