There are a lot of UFO markets, but this is the first with mutually exclusive choices and no arbitrarily-selected timetable to try to explain DoD whistleblower David Grusch's claims.
Intelligence officer David Grusch stated on July 26, 2023 in a hearing under oath that the US government possessed craft of non-human origin. He claimed that there is an ongoing government conspiracy to cover up research on these objects that is misappropriating taxpayer funds. The claims led Chuck Schumer to add over 50 pages of text in the National Defense Authorization Act asserting perhaps the most sweeping use of eminient domain in US history. The bill, which was passed by the Senate, mandates, among other things, contractors turn over these craft and create a scientific committee to evaluate evidence of non-human intelligence.
To illustrate how strange and improbable any outcome to the situation is, I created a market that shows there are only four ways that Grusch's claims can resolve. It is intended that the market MUST resolve to one of these four choices with a lower number overriding a higher number; if I have the wrong wording or a logic error, please correct me in a comment.
The market resolves to Non-human intelligence if non-human intelligence exists in any form, and that intelligence has influenced any person, animal, or event on Earth at any time before July 26, 2023. A single sighting or even "ESP feeling" caused by the NHI would be sufficient. NHI is defined as a phenomenon not created by humans born before July 26, 2023 that can achieve goals with at least the capability of GPT-4. #2, #3, or #4's truth are not relevant.
The market resolves to Advanced human technology if UFOs are the result of wildly advanced technology created by humans who were born before July 26, 2023 and which has been kept secret from the public for 85 years. It requires #1 to be false and #3 and #4 are not relevant.
The market resolves to Massive fraud if contractors and/or officials have been creating fake UFO videos and spreading misinformation for 85 years as a method to discredit investigations and siphon taxpayer dollars for unauthorized or nonexistent work. It requires #1 and #2 to be false and #4 is not relevant.
The market resolves to Multiple counts of perjury if Grusch and/or the 40 witnesses that reported to him are lying and the Intelligence Community Inspector General's conclusion that the claims were "credible and urgent" was not true, because #1, #2, and #3 are all false. If, however, they are lying to distract from fraud or human weapons, #4 is not the resolution. There may never be actual indictments for this resolution; other proof (such as messages indicating the witnesses were planning a publicity stunt) would suffice.
The market will remain open until the scientific community widely accepts one of the choices beyond a reasonable doubt, using the legal definition of the term. A "reasonable doubt" does not imply that ALL doubt must be eliminated in the lower numbered options, just that it would be unreasonable for a person to conclude a lower number is true after enough evidence comes to light.
It is intended that this market coalesce to the true probabilities of each of these options without the odds being artificially lowered by time. There are many other great markets for those who want an earlier end date with a lower standard of proof.
Gemini, which updates training date nightly (or whatever the frontier model is at the time) will be used to resolve the market if there is disagreement. It will resolve N/A if I made a mistake in making the choices mutually exclusive and I cannot correct the text without being unfair to people who have previously bet.
RELATED MARKET:
Related questions
@benshindel This article is actually being widely panned by those inside the AARO. I don't think it is useful evidence supporting one side or the other.
In the article, he talks about how no whistleblowers came forward to his office. Firsthand whistleblowers did actually come forward. They went above his head or to the ICIG, because they viewed him as someone who wasn't openminded and who was stonewalling investigations. There were some other people who did report UFO sightings to his office, but there is no proof of what they said because he did not use any recording devices during their interviews as is standard practice in such talks.
While he officially "resigned" from the office at the end of last year, it was understood in Congress that his position was no longer tenable, which is why he left suddenly without having a successor in place. The position of AARO director is still vacant because of his sudden departure.
I made a market about Corbell’s recent strong statement:
https://manifold.markets/Ansel/whats-truth-behind-jeremy-corbells?r=QW5zZWw
@Joshua I will create a market to evaluate claims on the non-human intelligence, like when the UAPs started coming, are religions influenced by them, the bodies, how many races there are, whether abductions are real, the crazier stuff about life after death, and so on first thing tomorrow morning, so we'll have two distinct markets.
I will leave out options about government programs in my market, and why don't you leave out specific claims about what the NHI is in your market?
Okay so I've stopped to think about this for a minute and I think that this market is clearly missing an option for "non-massive fraud". Let me lay out what I think is a very plausible state of the world:
1) There are parts of the defense department and greater defense industry that takes UAPs seriously, and are especially concerned by recent stuff like the Nimitz tic tac videos. Some people think it might be non human intelligence, some people think it might be advanced human technology, some think it's sensor malfunctions or natural atmospheric phenomenon. But they take it seriously.
2) There are secret programs dedicated to trying to figure out what UAPs are. They are secret partially because of the genuine concern for national security, but also in large part because it is embarrassing to be taking this seriously in public. Some people also keep things secret because it lets them spend lots of money without oversight.
3) There has been plenty of mundane fraud in these programs, as there is fraud in much of the defense department. When billions of dollars are thrown around and so many things are classified, money gets wasted and lost and lied about. And then people lie more to cover up previous lies and mistakes. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money have been wasted.
4) Rumors spread like wildfire because there is a lot of lying about a UFO program. It is easy for stories to arise about how in addition to hiding how much taxpayer money they've wasted, they are also hiding actual UFOs and interdimensional travelers and so on.
5) Maybe some of the people who wasted lots of taxpayer money even start or encourage some of these more fantastic rumors themselves, to make all of the rumors of fraud seem like conspiracy theories by association.
6) In reality, there are no retrieved UFOs or hidden bodies, just lots of wasted money and lots of lies about wasted money.
This does not at all require "spreading misinformation for 85 years" or for the people covering up wasted taxpayer money to have made any fake UFO videos.
It does not require fraud any more massive than what happens constantly with the billions of dollars that are spent on stupid things by the DoD.
On the scale of the military industrial complex, this is petty theft, a few lies of omission, and probably a bit of perjury as well.
If everything I've laid out above is true, how does this market resolve @SteveSokolowski ?
@Joshua My guess is that still resolves to Massive Fraud? I'd been avoiding buying that because the idea of the DOD making UFO videos for 85 years seems very unlikely to me.
But yeah, totally plausible there is fraud about secret government programs looking for UAPs, failing, and wasting taxpayer money.
@Joshua I think this is the main problem with this market. It was created with a lot of preconceived notions about the validity of UFO conspiracy theories and the resolution criteria are pigeonholed in a way to lead bettors into those notions.
@benshindel Yeah for a while I thought this market would simply never resolve because nothing else would happen after the hearings. But after the recent movement with the congressional hearings I'm somewhat optimistic that some fraud and/or perjury will be uncovered and reported on.
And so then maybe this will resolve sometime soon? Seems like congress does want to keep digging into this and finding out if taxpayer money is being used responsibly.
@Joshua I took a while to figure out how to respond to this comment.
I think that the conclusion I came to is that, given the volume of evidence available, it is extraordinarily improbable that the situation can be explained by small-scale fraud.
If you haven't spent at least 50 hours reading about some of the research on this topic, then I strongly encourage you to do so. Once you've evaluated the evidence yourself - and 50 hours may not be enough time to do so - you will likely find that the coordination necessary to pull off such a fraud would be unprecedented, which is why it was listed as "massive."
The fact that 40 witnesses including Cabinet-level officials felt it necessary to testify under oath to this situation indicates that by definition whatever is going on is massive.
However, if any signifcant amount of intentional theft of taxpayer funds were discovered - above the usual overbilling and padding of contracts - then I think that "fraud" would still be the correct resolution, given that it is the closest to the spirit of the market. If the programs do not exist, that would be perjury. If the programs do exist, but they don't have advanced technology and they were correctly authorized, then that is also perjury.
@SteveSokolowski @Joshua I strongly recommend NOT reading 50 hours of conspiratorial drivel on UFO hearings
The "spirit" of the market is determined by the creator, which is why this is not a good market to put large amounts of mana into.
@benshindel @SteveSokolowski @Joshua and I think it would be better if there were markets on SPECIFIC claims in these hearings. For instance, "will concrete evidence that the US is in possession of alien "biologics" come to light in the next 5 years" or "does Lockheed Martin have an alien spacecraft in their possession" or whatnot. I think it's very, very subjective how to decide whether a litany of hearings, vague claims, amongst a large number of actors is "fraud" or "perjury".
@benshindel I plan to do this tomorrow or Tuesday, so stay tuned.
I had actually been thinking about this for some time. While many people here aren't convinced, I think that those who are more familiar with the evidence would say that we are well past the point of "is non-human intelligence real" and into the "how much of this stuff is true?" For example, I think the evidence that craft exist is strong, but I think abductions could go either way, and would bet against the idea that alien "treaties" people speculate about actually exist.
I've read a lot of statements and think some sound plausible and some seem ridiculous, so it would be interesting to see what people think about how far all this goes.
After the SCIF meeting on Friday, I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably bet perjury for this market.
The IG basically said in the SCIF that the claims had merit and told them which contractors were involved and the specific locations where the interdimensional craft are alleged to be stored (i.e. at Lockheed Martin's facilities.)
Combined with the fact that Lockheed still refuses to deny that they possess these craft, I suspect that perjury will be able to be ruled out within a few months. All we need is an acknowledgment that Lockheed actually did take the money, and we then know one of the first three is true.
@MartinRandall The spirit of the market will be used as the resolving factor. 85 years is an estimate.
@MartinRandall Again, it will be the spirit of the market. Fraud against the American people is the spirit of the market.
@SteveSokolowski makes sense, maybe can remove the "85 years" from options 2 and 3 since they're not required.
I find it pretty funny that the resolution depends on the scientific community's consensus, while the option probabilities are so far from the actual scientific consensus. E.g. I think there is right now a scientific consensus that (1) is false but it's still trading at 20%. This isn't a criticism of the market itself, of course Grusch's claim has to be an option, it's just a funny situation.
@Pazzaz I think it’s mainly due to the long timeframe of this market: I expect science would take quite a long time to come to terms with 1 even if it were to come to light fairly soon.
@Pazzaz The reason that the criteria is "scientific consensus" is because scientists aren't taking the issue seriously but the evidence is otherwise becoming overwhelming. Now this man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gallaudet) is another person saying that the US has actually already made first contact. Not just some random insane person, or even lowly GS-15 David Grusch who was just only a guy who gave briefings to the President, but a rear admiral (!). If the resolution criteria wasn't scientists, we might have to call this pretty soon.
Am I the only person who finds it sort of astonishing that a rear admiral says that humanity made first contact with aliens and it's just laughed off?
I agree with @Ansel that the stubbornness of the scientific community to not investigate this is going to delay the resolution. I think that he's also missing though that agencies are probably destroying as many records and technology as possible right now to hide rampant criminality, and society might need to "rediscover" the destroyed research years from now.
As I said on another forum, the story here is not the aliens. It's the humans involved in this that society will be talking about. That's why this is being covered up. We saw in Abu Gharib what happens when military men are left with no accountability to anyone, when the programs are so classified that you know nobody is going to oversee anything.