Why the repost of my statement? Not sure what you’re getting at? Forensics doesn’t have to discover who or what hte intelligence is, al lthey must do is present evidence that both shows that something (perhaps a crime scene, or a discovery of an ancient culture’s presence in an area) could not have occured naturally, and that it must have been intelligently caused- You can beleive little green frogs from mars was the intelligence if you like, but if enough evidence is accumulated to show that it was necessary for an intelligence to cause what is being examined, then your job as a forensic scientist has been fulfilled- you have presented evidence that the issue could not have occured naturally, and evidence that an intelligence was needed- that is how you ‘test for’ intelligence-
Fair enough.
But to do this they need to specify what happened. You can't calculate probabilities without knowing what happened and when.