The thing that has me pretty confused about your confidence here is not just that there’s something weird going on here, but, that you expect it to be confirmed within 5 years.
Assume the counterfactual. Actual wreckage has been recovered, and assume that analysis has revealed a smoking gun.
Examples: working “antigravity” (assume it works by some unknown interaction with the mass of the planet and thus respects conservation laws)
Mass Spectrometry of the materials reveals atomic weights outside the known stable elements range
Currently impossible material properties
Electron micrographs show obvious patterning that looks like the object was assembled of cell sized nanorobots
VIN in an obvious alien language (this is weaker without other ontology breaking evidence)
One single update—the analysis of ONE crashed vehicle, by credible individuals with third party confirmation, is enough for ontology breakage.
Only way to win a bet like this is insider knowledge. Maybe the OP has actually observed something in the class of the above.
With all that said, if such evidence exists, why wasn’t it leaked or found by another government or private group and revealed? Probability seems low.
That should let you update at least slightly in favor of the thing he claims being right. That’s how betting and prediction markets work, right?
The thing that has me pretty confused about your confidence here is not just that there’s something weird going on here, but, that you expect it to be confirmed within 5 years.
Assume the counterfactual. Actual wreckage has been recovered, and assume that analysis has revealed a smoking gun.
Examples: working “antigravity” (assume it works by some unknown interaction with the mass of the planet and thus respects conservation laws)
Mass Spectrometry of the materials reveals atomic weights outside the known stable elements range
Currently impossible material properties
Electron micrographs show obvious patterning that looks like the object was assembled of cell sized nanorobots
VIN in an obvious alien language (this is weaker without other ontology breaking evidence)
One single update—the analysis of ONE crashed vehicle, by credible individuals with third party confirmation, is enough for ontology breakage.
Only way to win a bet like this is insider knowledge. Maybe the OP has actually observed something in the class of the above.
With all that said, if such evidence exists, why wasn’t it leaked or found by another government or private group and revealed? Probability seems low.
That should let you update at least slightly in favor of the thing he claims being right. That’s how betting and prediction markets work, right?