Detecting ET

[lpetrich]

Close Encounters of Various Kinds -  Close encounter

1. Nocturnal lights
2. Daylight disks
3. Radar-visual: UFO's seen with both
4. Close encounters of the first kind: close enough to see lots of details
5. Close encounters of the second kind: physical effects
6. Close encounters of the third kind: animated entities ("UFOnauts") visible. Ted Bloecher's subtypes:
   1. An entity is observed only inside the UFO
   2. An entity is observed inside and outside the UFO
   3. An entity is observed near to a UFO, but not going in or out
   4. An entity is observed. No UFOs are seen by the observer, but UFO activity has been reported in the area at about the same time
   5. An entity is observed, but no UFOs are seen and no UFO activity has been reported in the area at that time.
   6. No entity or UFOs are observed, but the subject experiences some kind of "intelligent communication"
7. Close encounters of the fourth kind: abduction, often including experiments done by the UFOnauts
8. Close encounters of the fifth kind: cooperative contact and communication with friendly UFOnauts, UFO-contactee cases
9. Close encounters of the sixth kind: human or animal deaths, though this may be an extreme example of the second kind
10. Close encounters of the seventh kind: human/UFOnaut hybridization

I also did a taxonomy of travels aboard extraterrestrial spacecraft:

• Under the control of at least some of its human occupants
• Under the control of some extraterrestrials. The human travelers:
  • Are traveling by mutual agreement (UFO contactees)
  • Are stowaways, present without the authorization of the spacecraft operators
  • Are involuntarily present (UFO abductees)

 

[lpetrich]

How to assess claims of ET contact. The Rio Scale of Extraterrestrial Contacts noting Rio scale and Rio Scale Calculator

Message quality:

• 6: Earth-specific message, or an ET artifact, capable of contact, or a physical encounter
• 5: Omnidirectional message with decipherable information, or a functioning ET artifact or space probe
• 4: Earth-specific beacon to draw our attention, or an ET artifact with a message to mankind
• 3: Omnidirectional beacon designed to draw attention, or an ET artifact with a message of a general character
• 2: Leakage radiation, without possible interpretation, or an ET artifact the purpose of which is understandable
• 1: Traces of astroengineering, or any indication of technological activity by an extant or extinct civilization at any distance, or an ET artifact, the purpose of which is unknown

The more detailed and specific, the better.

Method:

• 5: SETI/SETA observation; steady phenomenon verifiable by repeated observation or investigation
• 4: Non-SETI/SETA observation; steady phenomenon verifiable by repeated observation or investigation
• 3: SETI/SETA observation; transient phenomenon that has been verified but never repeated
• 2: Non-SETI/SETA observation; transient phenomenon that is reliable but never repeated
• 1: From archival data; a posteriori discovery without possiblity of verification

SETI/SETA = Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence / Artifacts
The more available for study the better.

Distance:

• 4: Within the Solar System
• 3: Within a distance which allows communication (at lightspeed) within a human lifetime
• 2: Within our Galaxy
• 1: Extragalactic

The closer the better.

Credibility or Reliability:

• 4/6: Absolutely reliable, without any doubt
• 3/6: Very probable, with verification already carried out
• 2/6: Possible, but should be verified before taken seriously
• 1/6: Very uncertain, but worthy of verification efforts
• 0: Obviously fake or fraudulent (me: or mistaken)

Quality = (message) + (method) + (distance)
Score = (quality) * (reliability)

 

[lpetrich]

The Rio Scale of Extraterrestrial Contacts: Online Quiz - my version

Discovery of extra-terrestrial life: assessment by scales of its importance and associated risks | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
All the way to simple microbial life.

Type:

• 5: completely alien life form
• 4: likely to be non-terrestrial, but some uncertainty remains
• 3: life definitely, but a previously unknown variant of terrestrial life (in structure or composition) (e.g. if DNA is present, different amino acids are used)
• 2: terrestrial-type life form, but some uncertainty remains
• 1: possible signature of life, but indirect information only (e.g. volatile, trace)

Not the best. I'd ask: how much of these putative ET organisms' biochemistry is accessible to us? Is their carrier of heredity something other than DNA? Does it have such things as opposite asymmetries of amino acids? These also apply to Earthling organisms that may possibly have had an origin separate from the origin of every well-studied one to date.

Nature:

• 6: complex life (high level of organization)
• 5: simple life (low level of organization)
• 4: extant life with suspended functioning (like a spore)
• 3: uncertain whether living or not (like a virus)
• 2: fossilized life or remnants of life forms
• 1: biomarkers (indirect evidence, like volatiles, metabolites, biochemical signatures, etc.)

Complex life - multicelled organisms with differentiated cells?
The first two - in action? (metabolism, growth, reproduction)

Method:

• 5: by analysing the result of a sample return mission (origin of the sample is well known)
• 4: by analysing something found on Earth’s surface or in the atmosphere (e.g. meteorite and atmospheric sample)
• 3: by a manned mission, in situ, on another celestial body
• 2: by a surface robot, in situ, on another celestial body
• 1: by remote sensing from the surface of the Earth or from satellites, flybys, etc.

How good a look can we get at the putative organisms?

Distance:

• 4: zero distance (on Earth)
• 3: inside the orbit of Jupiter (in situ research more easily possible)
• 2: on or outside the orbit of Jupiter, but in the Solar System (in situ research possible, but difficult)
• 1: beyond the Solar System (in situ research impossible)

How accessible?

Reliability:

• 0.5: certain or highly reliable
• 0.4: probably real
• 0.3: testable, needs further evidence
• 0.2: controversial, but not rejectable
• 0.1: probably not real
• 0: obviously fake or fraudulent (me: or mistaken)

Quality = (nature) + (type) + (distance) + (reliability)
Score = (quality) * (reliability)

 

[lpetrich]

Here are some of my Rio-scale estimates:

Canals of Mars (1877)

Event	Obs Type	Method	Distance	Quality	Reliability	Score
Around 1900 (consensus)	1	4	4	9	2	3
Percival Lowell	5	4	4	13	4	9
Around 1950 (consensus)	1	4	4	9	1	2
After Mariner 9	1	4	4	9	0	0

Pulsars (1967)

Event	Obs Type	Method	Distance	Quality	Reliability	Score
Discovery	2 - 4	4	1 - 3	7 - 11	1	1 - 2
Identification as Neutron Stars	2 - 4	4	1 - 3	7 - 11	0	0

 

[lpetrich]

Here are claims of ET activity in our Solar System. I'll leave aside reliability and only calculate the observation quality.

Event	Obs Type	Method	Distance	Quality
Mars's canals	1	4	4	9
Mars's moon Phobos's hollowness	1	4	4	9
The Mars Face	1	4	4	9
The Tunguska explosion	5	1	4	10
Interstellar asteroids	5	2	4	11
Ancient aliens: artifacts, uninterpretable	1	1	4	6
Ancient aliens: artifacts, interpretable	2	1	4	7
Ancient aliens: artifacts, message	4	1	4	9
Ancient aliens: contacts	6	1	4	11
AA archeology: artifacts, uninterpretable	1	4	4	9
AA archeology: artifacts, interpretable	2	4	4	10
AA archeology: artifacts, message	4	4	4	12
UFO observations	5	4	4	13
UFO contacts	6	4	4	14

AA = ancient aliens or ancient astronauts. Evidence of them may either be reported on or else discovered archeologically. If reported on, then we would work from documents that contain those reports.

Contacts include both abductions and friendly contacts, and the latter sort would clearly be the most informative -- if there is any reason to believe that they are anything more than pure fantasy (reliability 0).