UAP Encounter from 1886 Scientific American

I see a lot of arm waving and whining...and now personal attacks. All I have done is post the results of Bayesian analyses done by an AI designed to solve problems.
I don't see anyone taking on the numbers.

Whining is not a response to a statistical argument. Show specifically where the analysis fails, starting with the notion this was fabricated. And do this by analysis, not arm waving and proselytizing.

ALL of my inputs and the analysis is shown step by step. There are no black boxes.

Also, Cowgill stated that he saw the victims himself in the hospital. Stop making false claims.

I have only stated the logic. I have not stated any personal conclusions. Stop attacking me because you don't like the facts.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
I couldn't resist the temptation and asked for a complete Bayesian analysis of all preceding information.

[...] Analysis 1 — H₁: Account is truthful vs H₀: Account was fabricated. Result: BF ≈ 2.5 × 10⁸. The account is almost certainly genuine. This is a foundational premise for all subsequent reasoning.

[...] 8. Conclusion
The Bayesian analysis yields an overwhelming, effectively decisive posterior in favor of H₁. The 1886 Maracaibo event is not plausibly explained by natural causes — the complete absence of any natural ARS case in human history constitutes a hard logical exclusion, not merely a probabilistic one. It is not plausibly explained by 1886 human technology — the relevant physics and engineering were not merely unavailable but entirely unknown to humanity at that time. [...]
Click to expand...

It is too anachronistic an account, therefore, it has got to be true (or accurate)? AI is ignoring descriptive coincidence as a "plausible explanation".

Again, if even ancient texts and prophecies can feature anachronic descriptive coincidences that Crank Central finds apophenia-like significance in -- and biasedly projects modern interpretations upon, then hardly a challenge for one of many random anecdote distributors in the 19th-century to eventually stumble into the crosshairs of such statistical probability (and specious correlations).

  • Mahabharata, the Drona Parva

    "... crowds of warriors with steeds and elephants and weapons to be carried away as if they were dry leaves of trees.”

    “Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana, hurled a single projectile charged with the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame, as bright as ten thousand suns, rose with all its splendor.”

    “Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy. A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts. All points of the compass were lost in darkness.”

    “Fierce wind began to blow. Clouds roared upward, showering dust and gravel. Birds croaked madly… the very elements seemed disturbed.”

    “The Sun seemed to waver in the heavens. The Earth shook, scorched by the terrible, violent heat of this weapon.”

    “Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy…over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died.”

    “From all points of the compass, the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely.”

    “It was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.”

    “The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, and the birds turned white.”

    “After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected……to escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment.”

    “It was a weapon so powerful that it could destroy the earth in an instant–A great soaring sound in smoke and flames–And on it sits death…”
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
I see a lot of arm waving and whining...and now personal attacks. All I have done is post the results of Bayesian analyses done by an AI designed to solve problems.
I don't see anyone taking on the numbers.

Whining is not a response to a statistical argument. Show specifically where the analysis fails, starting with the notion this was fabricated. And do this by analysis, not arm waving and proselytizing.

ALL of my inputs and the analysis is shown step by step. There are no black boxes.

Also, Cowgill stated that he saw the victims himself in the hospital. Stop making false claims.

I have only stated the logic. I have not stated any personal conclusions. Stop attacking me because you don't like the facts.
Click to expand...
Ivan Seeking No one is attacking you. My research indicated the information was flakey,how do you want me to respond to that?

Dave and I know what is means to be a PF mentor, you already had our respect.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I see a lot of arm waving and whining...and now personal attacks. All I have done is post the results of Bayesian analyses done by an AI designed to solve problems.
I don't see anyone taking on the numbers.

Whining is not a response to a statistical argument. Show specifically where the analysis fails, starting with the notion this was fabricated. And do this by analysis, not arm waving and proselytizing.

ALL of my inputs and the analysis is shown step by step. There are no black boxes.

Also, Cowgill stated that he saw the victims himself in the hospital. Stop making false claims.

I have only stated the logic. I have not stated any personal conclusions. Stop attacking me because you don't like the facts.
Click to expand...
Fabricated?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I see a lot of arm waving and whining...and now personal attacks. All I have done is post the results of Bayesian analyses done by an AI designed to solve problems.
I don't see anyone taking on the numbers.

Whining is not a response to a statistical argument. Show specifically where the analysis fails, starting with the notion this was fabricated. And do this by analysis, not arm waving and proselytizing.

ALL of my inputs and the analysis is shown step by step. There are no black boxes.

Also, Cowgill stated that he saw the victims himself in the hospital. Stop making false claims.

I have only stated the logic. I have not stated any personal conclusions. Stop attacking me because you don't like the facts.
Click to expand...
Ivan, not all people are professional skeptics. I support your efforts.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. A good one, too.
Click to expand...
Ok, so just another intelligent person who has been seduced by dodgy evidence. It happens. It's just weird to me, because the mods I saw over at PF (in my brief passing through) seemed really tough-minded on data evaluation and analysis. The Venezuela incident seems like one empirical notch above "rural folklore."
And lumping this case in with more recent reports that are likely to be radiation exposure is not warranted.

When you hear hoodbeats in Deadwood, think horse not zebra. When you hear burns on body areas most proximal to the ground, think lightning not radiation blast in 1880s. Bayes is not applicable here, FFS.
 
Mathematical accounts of the lack of evidence for alien visitation generally revolve around probability theory, Bayesian analysis, and the Fermi Paradox, which collectively argue that the absence of evidence is, in itself, strong evidence of absence. These calculations often show that, despite high statistical probabilities of extraterrestrial life existing somewhere, the likelihood of that life visiting Earth is extremely low or effectively zero
Here are the key mathematical and scientific arguments:

1. The Fermi Paradox (The "Great Silence")
The Fermi Paradox highlights the contradiction between high estimates of the probability of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for such civilizations (the "Great Silence").
  • Time and Space Argument: The Galaxy is $\sim$100,000 light-years across. A civilization traveling at just 1% of the speed of light would take roughly 10 million years to cross it. Since the Galaxy is billions of years old, there has been ample time for civilizations to colonize the galaxy. The absence of such colonization, or remnants of it, argues against visitation.
  • Lack of Probes: Even if physical visitation is rare, there is no evidence of robotic probes in our solar system, which would be a more energy-efficient method of exploration.
    Medium +1

2. Bayesian Probability and "No Evidence"
Bayesian calculations are used to weigh the likelihood of alien visitation against the probability that a "UFO" is a natural phenomenon, a prank, or a mistake.
The Conversation +2
  • Prior Probability vs. Posterior Probability: If one assumes the prior probability of aliens visiting is very low (e.g., 1 in a billion), even "weird" evidence, such as unclear UFO footage, does not significantly increase the probability of visitation.
  • The "No Evidence" Rule: If we assume the probability of witnessing evidence of aliens

    is very low, then

    (the probability of seeing this evidence when no aliens exist) is effectively high compared to

    (the probability of seeing it when they do exist), reinforcing the null hypothesis.
    Mathematics Stack Exchange +2

3. The "Anti-Drake" or Survival Argument
A 5-step mathematical argument suggests that if intelligent aliens existed in large numbers, we would have seen them.
Medium
  1. Existence: If aliens exist, some should survive long enough to travel or communicate.
  2. Observation: None have done this in a detectable, public manner.
  3. Timescale: The time available for them to visit is millions/billions of years.
  4. Conclusion: Therefore, non-shy, interstellar-capable aliens likely do not exist or are extremely rare.
    Medium

4. Constraints on Interstellar Travel
Mathematics regarding the speed of light provides a strict, almost insurmountable constraint. If interstellar travel faster than the speed of light is impossible, the vast distances between stars make sustained contact or physical visitation unlikely.
Reddit +2

5. Probability of "Unknown Unknowns"
A 2023 analysis argued that it is impossible to establish the existence of alien life at a specific threshold of evidence unless the probability of an "unknown unknown" (a new, unknown natural process) is extremely low. In other words, if a natural explanation could exist, that explanation will always be more mathematically probable than an alien explanation.
ResearchGate +1

Summary of Evidence
  • UFO/UAP: Official reports indicate no credible evidence that unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) are extraterrestrial in nature.
  • "Oumuamua & Other Cases: Unusual objects like 'Oumuamua have been thoroughly investigated, and reasonable, naturalistic explanations have been found, removing them as evidence of ET, according to some researchers.
 
No, the A1 Bayesian method (or any Bayesian approach) does not prove that aliens have visited Earth. Instead, it is a mathematical framework used to calculate the likelihood or probability of a hypothesis based on evidence, allowing for updated, more informed beliefs, but it cannot definitively confirm a phenomenon as fact.
Wikipedia +1
Key Takeaways on Bayesian Methods and Alien Visitation:
  • Not Proof, Only Probability: Bayesian analysis updates the likelihood of a hypothesis (e.g., "aliens are visiting") based on incoming evidence. It can determine that a hypothesis is more plausible than before, but this is distinct from scientific proof.
  • Sensitivity to Prior Beliefs: The outcome of a Bayesian calculation heavily depends on the "prior probability"—the initial, subjective belief about how likely alien visitation is to begin with. If one starts with a very low prior (a high skepticism), even moderate evidence may not raise the posterior probability to a significant level.
  • The Problem of "Unconceived Alternatives": A major critique of using Bayesian methods for extraterrestrial phenomena is that, while analyzing evidence (like a UFO sighting), one must account for the probability of it being a natural phenomenon or a hoax. The method assumes a closed set of possibilities, potentially missing explanations not yet imagined.
  • Weakness in Low-Quality Data: As noted by many, much of the evidence for UFOs is "blurry and vague," making it difficult to generate a high posterior probability that points specifically to intelligent extraterrestrial life.
    National Institutes of Health (.gov) +4
While Bayesian techniques have been used to analyze the statistical likelihood of intelligent life in the universe (e.g., by astrophysicist David Kipping), they are tools of estimation rather than a mechanism for definitive validation of visitation.
 
No, the Bayesian method does not prove that aliens have visited
Earth
. Scientific and statistical analyses using Bayesian inference actually suggest that the probability of past alien visitation is extremely low, and there is currently no definitive evidence of such visits.

Bayesian Probability of Alien Visitation
Statistical models that incorporate current evidence (or the lack thereof) yield very low probabilities for past alien contact:
  • Low Statistical Odds: A Bayesian analysis assessing the likelihood of alien encounters estimated the mean probability for past encounters at approximately 0.0003 (or 0.03%). This translates to roughly a 1 in 3,260 chance that humanity has already encountered extraterrestrial life.
  • High Uncertainty: These estimates range from as low as 1 in 125,000 to as high as 1 in 1,000, depending on the assumptions used for "priors" (initial beliefs) and the quality of evidence.
  • Scientific Consensus: NASA states there is currently no evidence that alien life has ever visited our planet.

How the Bayesian Method is Applied to Aliens
Bayesian inference is a statistical technique that updates the probability of a hypothesis as new data becomes available. In the context of extraterrestrial life, it is used to weigh various possibilities:
  • The "Backwards" Argument: Some theoretical exercises use a "backwards Bayesian argument" to suggest that if we assume a 50:50 chance of visitation, even a small number of independent cases without natural explanations could lead to a significant posterior probability. However, this is often criticized as "question-begging" because it requires assigning a non-zero prior probability to alien visitation to begin with.
  • UFO/UAP Analysis: When applied to blurry or vague UFO sightings, the method calculates the probability of a sighting being an alien given the evidence (

    ). This requires balancing the likelihood of evidence given aliens (

    ) against the likelihood of evidence given natural causes (

    ).
  • Life vs. Intelligence: Research by astronomer David Kipping used Bayesian analysis to estimate that while life might be common (appearing quickly on Earth), the emergence of intelligence is likely rare. He found roughly 3:2 odds that intelligence is a rare occurrence, suggesting that even if life exists elsewhere, it may not have reached a technological state capable of visiting Earth.

Challenges in Using Bayesian Proof
The primary limitation of the Bayesian approach in this field is the problem of "unconceived alternatives". To reach a high probability for aliens, one must accurately know the probability of a phenomenon occurring naturally without aliens. Because humans have only explored a limited amount of possible natural processes, we may not yet know of alternative natural sources for "alien-like" evidence.
 
Roosters for ever said:
The primary limitation of the Bayesian approach in this field is the problem of "unconceived alternatives".
Click to expand...
Yes! There's the bullseye. And there's a prima facie expectation that any atmospheric anomaly is more likely to be native to our atmosphere.
Hoofbeats in Kansas --> horse, not zebra. And every terrestrial anomaly that's documented updates our Bayesian probability analysis. And anomalies by their nature provide sparse data and unconceived alternatives.
 
TheVat said:
Yes! There's the bullseye. And there's a prima facie expectation that any atmospheric anomaly is more likely to be native to our atmosphere.
Hoofbeats in Kansas --> horse, not zebra. And every terrestrial anomaly that's documented updates our Bayesian probability analysis. And anomalies by their nature provide sparse data and unconceived alternatives.
Click to expand...
There have been over 200,000 reported sightings and interactions with the possibility of many more unreported. If say 3'4 can be proven false (and not by the amazing Randy, that leaves many more to be explained.
 
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever said:
There have been over 200,000 reported sightings and interactions with the possibility of many more unreported. If say 3'4 can be proven false (and not by the amazing Randy, that leaves meant more to be explained.
Click to expand...
And if they can't be explained, i.e. can't be proven to be a known natural/terrestrial phenomenon, then what? Are you of the view that not being proven to be of mundane explanation means it is, say, ET? Or transdimensional or time-travelling humans?
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
There have been over 200,000 reported sightings and interactions with the possibility of many more unreported. If say 3'4 can be proven false (and not by the amazing Randy, that leaves many more to be explained.
Click to expand...
Yep, most have been verified as atmospheric scenarios, mirages or delusions, the few that remain unexplained are *shock, horror* Unexplained, or if you prefer Unknown. "Unexplained and unknown" do not equate to Aliens.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
There have been over 200,000 reported sightings and interactions with the possibility of many more unreported. If say 3'4 can be proven false (and not by the amazing Randy, that leaves many more to be explained.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean their origin is "space alien" stuff, anymore than years of delay in determining Crowshade Mire's cause of death means that he died from a voodoo curse inflicted by swamp witches.

Mainstream occupations -- especially those whose work results can indirectly supplement or affect policymaking, construction projects, etc -- have to make responsible, mature, logistic, fact-based decisions according to guidelines in order to both persist and avoid detrimental outcomes and litigation. Even in a world where rare anomalies and occasional crazy things were actually valid, the outright resistance of the latter to fully and overtly confirming themselves beyond doubt would still entail judicious institutions, agencies, and enterprises to filter or mitigate entertaining them.
_
 
C C said:
That doesn't mean their origin is "space alien" stuff, anymore than years of delay in determining Crowshade Mire's cause of death means that he died from a voodoo curse inflicted by swamp witches.
Click to expand...
: Googles name :
Damn cool name. And it appears to not be taken. Consider it yoinked for my voodoo story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top