UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

In reference to the Venezuelan case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) and the radiation symptoms:

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Oh, I am sorry - you must have missed this post then:

Symptomatology and progression of same in the Venezuelan case(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair​

Among other symptoms, from the University of Maryland Medical Centre we have under "Radiation sickness - Symptoms":

(…)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Open sores on the skin
• Hair loss
(…)
(http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000026sym.htm)​

Now there are many other symptoms in that list I have not included and while cases of radiation sickness may vary in specific symptom presentation - depending on dose and level of exposure to different parts of the body and even individual differences (and various websites will list differing combinations of symptoms and doses – leaving some out – including others) – the point is that the specific symptomatology and general progression of same experienced in the Venezuelan case ARE recognised radiation poisoning symptoms!

To contend otherwise (as you obviously do) is to simply deny the well established scientific evidence! However, at this point it no longer surprises me that a UFO debunker would do that.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, it would probably be a good idea to present evidence that supports your claim rather than evidence against it. The Battelle study clearly concludes:

"The probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small."

You might not like that and wish it was the other way around, but it's there for anyone to read.

Again, just like the statements of Access Denied before you, your statements here are misrepresentative and misleading - and to that end, just like Access Denied before you, you fail to note from where in the report you draw your quote and critically what part of the analysis it actually refers to!

That quoted statement from you (that by your inclusion of the capital letter at the beginning and the full stop at the end actually turns it into a misquote!) actually refers ONLY to the 12 “good UNKNOWNS" and the analysis concerned with determining a “model” flying saucer!

”Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends.” (p.94)​

It must be noted that if the statement does not refer ONLY to the study of the 12 “good UNKNOWNS”, then that last section (that the data “failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends”) is an outright lie! Clearly one of the most notable trends in the data was that the more reliable the report, the more likely that it would be categorised as UNKNOWN. To ensure that last section of the Battelle statement is not a lie, then we must assume that it too refers ONLY to the attempt to determine a “model” flying saucer – and then of course the whole statement refers ONLY to that section of the analysis and thus does not constitute a general conclusion about the whole study (as you seem to imply) at all!

Tell me Jocce: Did you somehow think I would not know where in the report your misquote came from - or that I would not know to what it actually referred – or that I would not expose your statements in this regard as misrepresentations?

I did not mention ETH anywhere in my post and I have on several occassions told you that when I say "alien" I mean it per your definition of the term.

You mean (from the definition supplied in my OP) as ”… something outside our common understanding of reality.”?

You stated that ”This study concludes that it is highly implausible that any of the cases included are of "alien" origin.”

The Battelle study actually stated:

”…it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge." (p. 94)​

What then are we to make of that statement? Clearly the study determined that more than 20% of the reports were classified as UNKNOWN – and given that the analysis determined that there was a significant difference between the KNOWN reports and the UNKNOWN reports - if “UNKNOWN” is not “outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge”, then what is it?

I quoted (in part) from Dr Hynek (including the section you bolded):
”… the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273)

The bolded part is an interesting claim that goes against the evidence. Maybe he didn't notice the 15 pages of discussion and results of the revised tests done ? He should really have read pages 61 to 76.

Those pages in the report discuss the Chi-Square analyses of the differences between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS – which of course showed that there was indeed a significant difference. Yet the report itself concludes in opposition to this. What or who are we then to believe - the data and the results of analysis or the opinions of an unknown author who wrote claims in opposition to that data and analysis? It seems Hynek was precisely correct when he stated ”the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests”!

 

[SOdhner]

Oh, I am sorry - you must have missed this post then:

Speaking of, I think you missed my entire post since you haven't replied yet.

But to just jump to this radiation issue... let me try an analogy since you seem to be having trouble with this.

Let's say there are only three dogs in the world.

1. A hairless Chihuahua.
2. Neapolitan Mastiff
3. A Greyhound.

You describe something that is 150 pounds, hairless, and was running at almost 40mph. You correctly point out that these are all traits of dogs.

What people are trying to explain, is that you have not actually described one of the three dogs that exist.

So, back to the actual case: The symptoms described in the letter have certain things in common with radiation sickness, but do not match any specific type or dosage of radiation. Unless you can specifically point to what type and dosage of radiation would cause those symptoms, you have no case.

 

[Jocce]

Again, just like the statements of Access Denied before you, your statements here are misrepresentative and misleading - and to that end, just like Access Denied before you, you fail to note from where in the report you draw your quote and critically what part of the analysis it actually refers to!

I understand that it must be frustrating but, as I already said, the conclusions of the Battelle study are clearly:

1. Low probability that apparent similarities between cases of objects definately identified and those not identified were significant.

2. Very small probablility that any of the "unknowns" represent observation of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers".

3. Highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

 

[Jocce]

In reference to the Venezuelan case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) and the radiation symptoms:

Oh, I am sorry - you must have missed this post then:

No, I saw that one. But, I must have missed the post where you presented a combination of radiation that matches the progression of symptoms as described in the letter.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nope. Your version of a process of elimination simply failed when you summarily dismissed 'hoax' as a plausible explanation.

Rramjet, would you like to discuss why your process failed in the Delphos case? It is hypocritical of you to invited discussion and then ignore it when it counters your belief system.

Rramjet, since you've now seen fit to take your Delphos case to another thread, I'm surprised that you won't address it in this one.

You've cited a post from this thread in this other thread.

Wouldn't we all be better served if you were to confine your arguments about those cases to this moderated thread and not hijack others?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[...]if “UNKNOWN” is not “outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge”, then what is it?

Unknown.

 

[Rramjet]

But to just jump to this radiation issue... let me try an analogy since you seem to be having trouble with this.

Let's say there are only three dogs in the world.

1. A hairless Chihuahua.
2. Neapolitan Mastiff
3. A Greyhound.

You describe something that is 150 pounds, hairless, and was running at almost 40mph. You correctly point out that these are all traits of dogs.

Umm …no, I don’t think those are all traits of dogs at all. A Chihuahua is not “150 pounds” and a Neopolitan Mastiff cannot run at “40mph” and a Greyhound is not “hairless”, so obviously these cannot be “traits of dogs”. Individually, they may be the traits of specific breeds of dog, but not of dogs in general.

What people are trying to explain, is that you have not actually described one of the three dogs that exist.

Tell me then – what do you make of this information?

Symptomatology and progression of same in the Venezuelan case(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair​

Among other symptoms, from the University of Maryland Medical Centre we have under "Radiation sickness - Symptoms":

(…)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Open sores on the skin
• Hair loss
(…)
(http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000026sym.htm)​

So, back to the actual case: The symptoms described in the letter have certain things in common with radiation sickness…

Like being specific symptoms of radiation sickness perchance?

…but do not match any specific type or dosage of radiation. Unless you can specifically point to what type and dosage of radiation would cause those symptoms, you have no case.

Have you considered a combination of types in varying dosage?

...I must have missed the post where you presented a combination of radiation that matches the progression of symptoms as described in the letter.

Oh, I am sorry – here it is:

Symptomatology and progression of same in the Venezuelan case(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair​

Among other symptoms, from the University of Maryland Medical Centre we have under "Radiation sickness - Symptoms":

(…)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Open sores on the skin
• Hair loss
(…)
(http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000026sym.htm)​

 

[Rramjet]

1. Low probability that apparent similarities between cases of objects definately identified and those not identified were significant.

From the summary introduction to the report we have:

”The first step in the analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified and those not identified. Statistical methods of testing were applied –which indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant.” (p. vii)​

Now let us examine what those statistical tests actually revealed:

”…it looked as though there was a good possibility that the UNKNOWNS were no different from the KNOWNS, at least in the aggregate.. It was decided to investigate this by the use of a statistical procedure called the "Chi Square Test". (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) p. 61)​

The Chi-Square tests are presented on pages 62-67 of the report - and the conclusion?.

” In five of the six cases, the probability is less than 1 per cent that the distributions are the same. In the sixth case, Light Brightness, the classifications are too nebulous to be of real value. (p. 68)​

Or as Dr Hynek noted:

Probability that “Unidentifieds” Are the Same as Identifieds

COLOR: Probability less than 1%
DURATION OF OBSERVATION: Probability very much less than 1%
NUMBER: Probability very much less than 1%
LIGHT BRIGHTNESS: Probability greater than 5%
SHAPE: Probability less than 1%
SPEED: Probability much less than 1%

(…) A quick calculation shows that the probability of all six UFO-characteristic chi-square tests giving the same results by chance (and thus making the conclusions drawn from the tests wrong) is much less that one chance in a billion.

Yet the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273) (bolding my own. Rr.)​

2. Very small probablility that any of the "unknowns" represent observation of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers".

From the summary introduction to the report we have:

” An attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers" necessitated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of cases of objects not originally identified; this led to the conclusion that the probability was very small.” (p. vii)​

So what did that “re-examination and re-evaluation” actually show? That primarily because there was not determined - from the 12 (!) “good UNKNOWN” reports examined in this regard - a consistent shape – then the above statement is like contending that a car, a truck, a train, a ship and an airplane are not all a class (or classes) of transport vehicle because their shapes do not coincide! Rubbish!

Moreover, what sort of legitimacy can we place in a conclusion which generalises from a highly selective examination of just 12 reports to the whole body of 434 UNKNOWNS?

3. Highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

From the summary conclusion of the report we have:

”…it is considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological 'developments outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. (p. viii)​

But what does that mean? Clearly the study determined that more than 20% of the reports were classified as UNKNOWN – and given that the analysis determined that there was a significant difference between the KNOWN reports and the UNKNOWN reports - if “UNKNOWN” is not “outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge”, then what is it?

Moreover, how can anything UNKNOWN be assessed as “highly improbable” (or even “highly probable”) to be anything at all? It is simply a nonsense to suppose such an assessment can be made.

I can only repeat Dr Hynek’s assessment of the conclusions of the report:

”…the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report[/I]. Sphere Books. London. p. 273) (bolding my own. Rr.)​

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, since you've now seen fit to take your Delphos case to another thread, I'm surprised that you won't address it in this one.

You've cited a post from this thread in this other thread.

Wouldn't we all be better served if you were to confine your arguments about those cases to this moderated thread and not hijack others?

You mean THIS thread has THIS post which references THIS post in THIS thread – in which you think one of the cases referenced in THAT post should properly be discussed in THIS thread?

Okay, my preliminary arguments about that case have been stated in THIS post …so over to you then...

 

[Jocce]

Those pages in the report discuss the Chi-Square analyses of the differences between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS – which of course showed that there was indeed a significant difference. Yet the report itself concludes in opposition to this. What or who are we then to believe - the data and the results of analysis or the opinions of an unknown author who wrote claims in opposition to that data and analysis? It seems Hynek was precisely correct when he stated ”the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests”!

Ahh, now I see where your apparent confusion comes from. You only read about the first test that was done. If you continue reading (p68-76), you will see that they analysed the test results and noticed this:

In every case for which there is a significant excess of KNOWNS over UNKNOWNS, the excess can be attributed to an excess of identifiable astronomical phenomena. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that astronomical phenomena are easy to identify and there are very few left in the UNKNOWNS.

They then redid the test with astronomical phenomena removed from the KNOWN group and there was a much better fit, although not conclusive. They therefor concluded:

The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical phenomena.

Hope this clears it up for you and I'm sure you now see that the Battelle report did not at all disregard the results of that first test.

 

[tomi71]

What´s the use for repeating the unknown thing over and over again. I think it´s proofed already that some unidentified objects has been shown to be under intelligent control and have probe not to be man-made. Surely they remain unknown but also known what they are NOT.

Everybody is then free to take the next step and draw conclusions about where the evidence seems to lead us. The evidence seems to lead us to ET-hypotesis. Even if we accept other hypothesis as well it doesn´t mean that ET-hypothesis must be thrown to carbage.

Surely there are hoaxes and there are things that people think they saw that are influenced by media. It doesn´t mean that there can´t be ET´s as well.

ET´s may not be proven but I see why people are attacking so strongly against any testimonies saying there are. Why so loudly and angrily? This isn´t a debate about religion but an interesting phenomena which I would think that sceptic and scifi-oriented people (very often they are same people) would analyze open mindidly. Instead I see people speaking from their belief-system who seem to feel offended and must attack and ridicule the most astonishing phenomena man-kind has ever experienced. Even when there are scientific studies they are sweeped under the rug.

I wonder why is this psychologically so intimidating to people. The governments have shown to take this phenomena very seriously and studied it even secretly and lied same time that there is no an interest into it.

I wonder where does the arrogance come from to people who seem to say that science already has all the answers and rely their belief system accordingly. Every one who has ever relied his view of the world and cosmos based on the latest science has always been a somewhat wrong because science is constantly changing itself. It should be a very good tool to examine universe and reality but I think we should remember that scientific perspective is broadening all the time and UFOlogy is probably the next great barrier and taboo to be crossed.

What if we would have listened to debunkers only in history? We would have never landed to the moon or found new continents or came up with great new technology and science since there has been always those loud negativists who have argued the impossiblity of phenomenons and things who have leaned to the science at that time and have not wanted to watch "over the horizon".

UFO-phenomena should be taken seriously and instead of semantics one could argue what we really know about the phenomena and really study the evidence no matter where it leads us.

 

[SOdhner]

Individually, they may be the traits of specific breeds of dog,

Right. That's what I said.

Tell me then – what do you make of this information?

It's useless. It's a list of miscellaneous symptoms. Different types and dosages of radiation (like different breeds of dogs) present differently. A big list of symptoms isn't any more helpful than a bunch of traits from different breeds of dogs.

Like being specific symptoms of radiation sickness perchance?

No.

Have you considered a combination of types in varying dosage?

I have! I didn't find any that fit, but it's possible I missed somethin - If you think I have, feel free to suggest one yourself.

Oh, I am sorry – here it is:

No, that's just a list of miscellaneous symptoms. What multiple people have repeatedly asked for is a specific type and dosage that would cause the symptoms described in the letter.

Remember: rather than just a list of symptoms, you would need to provide the TYPE of radiation and the DOSAGE. You don't actually have to include symptoms at all, since people will certainly want to look that up for themselves anyway.

TYPE and DOSAGE.

Also, you still never replied to my other post.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You mean THIS thread has THIS post which references THIS post in THIS thread – in which you think one of the cases referenced in THAT post should properly be discussed in THIS thread?

Okay, my preliminary arguments about that case have been stated in THIS post …so over to you then...

You've simply linked to your original post that I refuted. You haven't explained how you eliminated hoaxing. The fairy ring is a known fungus. If you have nothing further to add, it can be explained by hoaxing and a known fungus.

Over to you then...

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

What´s the use for repeating the unknown thing over and over again. I think it´s proofed already that some unidentified objects has been shown to be under intelligent control and have probe not to be man-made. Surely they remain unknown but also known what they are NOT.

That's the thing we don't know anything UFOs don't mean Underintelligent flight Operations It's Unidentified Flying Object. Also you don't have "proofed" that they are under intelligent control because there is no "they" what we have are cases we need to look at each case on their merits not just pile all the sightings in one big book of evidence. This point about what we know what they are not isn't true at all just look at the questions the other guys raised with RR about his method of process of elimination.

Everybody is then free to take the next step and draw conclusions about where the evidence seems to lead us. The evidence seems to lead us to ET-hypotesis. Even if we accept other hypothesis as well it doesn´t mean that ET-hypothesis must be thrown to carbage.

They are Koalas, see Koalas seem to be really lazy animals but that's not true, because they are multidimensional beings that use their psychic energys create projections that look like flying discs, cigars, blinking lights, v shape craft etc. They also project dreams into people's minds even when they are wide awake that makes it appear like there are beings in control of the craft and sometimes they take it a step too far and make it like the pilots of the craft abduct people.

Surely there are hoaxes and there are things that people think they saw that are influenced by media. It doesn´t mean that there can´t be ET´s as well.

As I said before, we have to look at each case alone on their merits and frankly none of them stand up

ET´s may not be proven but I see why people are attacking so strongly against any testimonies saying there are. Why so loudly and angrily? This isn´t a debate about religion but an interesting phenomena which I would think that sceptic and scifi-oriented people (very often they are same people) would analyze open mindidly.

We do look at it with an open mind. The problem come when we share evidence that counters your theories where you call us names and think we are angry people.

Instead I see people speaking from their belief-system who seem to feel offended and must attack and ridicule the most astonishing phenomena man-kind has ever experienced. Even when there are scientific studies they are sweeped under the rug.

That's because you see it from your belief system, if you were a truly looking for the truth in this 'phenomena' then you wouldn't sweep any evidence that counters your beliefs under the rug.

I wonder why is this psychologically so intimidating to people. The governments have shown to take this phenomena very seriously and studied it even secretly and lied same time that there is no an interest into it.

Such as? When did they study it secretly and lie about showing no interest? Also it's not.

The next three quotes deserve their own thread, I'll try to stick with the Science changes all the time so Ufology is real

I wonder where does the arrogance come from to people who seem to say that science already has all the answers and rely their belief system accordingly.

These old chestnuts? I think Science has all the answers? No. Science perspective is broadening all the time? Yes. thus Ufology should be taken seriously? No.

Science is the best tool we have to understand this world and universe we live in. What scares you? Is it that perfectly normal people can be mistaken there are people that have waking dreams? that they can have mass hallucination? bandwagon effect?That they can see Artifacts in film and see Alien crafts? That people for the fun of it will hoax other people? I'm sure there are other things. Is it that Human physiology is a big factor in UFO sightings?

Every one who has ever relied his view of the world and cosmos based on the latest science has always been a somewhat wrong because science is constantly changing itself. It should be a very good tool to examine universe and reality but I think we should remember that scientific perspective is broadening all the time and UFOlogy is probably the next great barrier and taboo to be crossed.

Tom71 how many years have people being researching UFOs? 30? 40? 60? Does it matter you may ask? Well it does, because the evidence of UFOs being aliens hasn't changed apart from theories where the aliens are from.

If you listen to some Paranormal podcasts there are researchers that freely admit that the UFO field is stagnant due to the lack of empirical evidence. Then you have the people in the field that drop out. Such as Bob Hopkins ex wife who spill the beans on her ex's research. Or one of the MUFON presidents basically saying what I just said. My point is "ufology" isn't advancing just speculancing.

What if we would have listened to debunkers only in history? We would have never landed to the moon or found new continents or came up with great new technology and science since there has been always those loud negativists who have argued the impossiblity of phenomenons and things who have leaned to the science at that time and have not wanted to watch "over the horizon".

Massive strawman floating in a poisoned well. I'm tempted to do a full reply to this but it's rather pointless.

UFO-phenomena should be taken seriously and instead of semantics one could argue what we really know about the phenomena and really study the evidence no matter where it leads us.

What semantics? If you read any of our replies to RR's posts with an open mind. You wouldn't be able to say we are using semantics to argue our points.

 

[TjW]

What´s the use for repeating the unknown thing over and over again. I think it´s proofed already that some unidentified objects has been shown to be under intelligent control and have probe not to be man-made.

Shown by whom, with what evidence?

 

[Jocce]

What´s the use for repeating the unknown thing over and over again. I think it´s proofed already that some unidentified objects has been shown to be under intelligent control and have probe not to be man-made.

No, there is no proof that some UFOs are "alien".

Everybody is then free to take the next step and draw conclusions about where the evidence seems to lead us. The evidence seems to lead us to ET-hypotesis.

When someone manages to present some good evidence we will see where it leads. In the mean time, it's UFOs.

Surely there are hoaxes and there are things that people think they saw that are influenced by media. It doesn´t mean that there can´t be ET´s as well.

Of course, and noone has claimed otherwise. There can be ETs flying around earth. I've seen no evidence for it though.

ET´s may not be proven but I see why people are attacking so strongly against any testimonies saying there are. Why so loudly and angrily? This isn´t a debate about religion but an interesting phenomena which I would think that sceptic and scifi-oriented people (very often they are same people) would analyze open mindidly. Instead I see people speaking from their belief-system who seem to feel offended and must attack and ridicule the most astonishing phenomena man-kind has ever experienced. Even when there are scientific studies they are sweeped under the rug.

This thread has been full of openminded analyzing. The only closed minds seem to be on the "believer" side.

I wonder why is this psychologically so intimidating to people.

Intimidating? I don't follow you.

I wonder where does the arrogance come from to people who seem to say that science already has all the answers and rely their belief system accordingly. Every one who has ever relied his view of the world and cosmos based on the latest science has always been a somewhat wrong because science is constantly changing itself. It should be a very good tool to examine universe and reality but I think we should remember that scientific perspective is broadening all the time and UFOlogy is probably the next great barrier and taboo to be crossed.

Feel free to start a scientific investigation of UFOs. Noone is stopping you.

What if we would have listened to debunkers only in history? We would have never landed to the moon or found new continents or came up with great new technology and science since there has been always those loud negativists who have argued the impossiblity of phenomenons and things who have leaned to the science at that time and have not wanted to watch "over the horizon".

Moon landings, new technology etc. is brought about with the aid of scientific methodology, not by close minded believers who thinks that magnifying youtube videos equals research.

UFO-phenomena should be taken seriously and instead of semantics one could argue what we really know about the phenomena and really study the evidence no matter where it leads us.

Noone is stoping you from studying it and several people has been studying the evidence for a number of cases in this very thread. The evidence is underwhelming so far.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” It seems Hynek was precisely correct when he stated “the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests”[!

Ahh, now I see where your apparent confusion comes from. You only read about the first test that was done. If you continue reading (p68-76), you will see that they analysed the test results and noticed this:

” In every case for which there is a significant excess of KNOWNS over UNKNOWNS, the excess can be attributed to an excess of identifiable astronomical phenomena. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that astronomical phenomena are easy to identify and there are very few left in the UNKNOWNS. (p.69)​

They then redid the test with astronomical phenomena removed from the KNOWN group and there was a much better fit, although not conclusive. They therefor concluded:

”The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical phenomena.” (p.76)​

Hope this clears it up for you and I'm sure you now see that the Battelle report did not at all disregard the results of that first test.

Oh, I am sorry …you seem to have missed the following statement:

”It is apparent that the deletion of astronomical sightings gives a better fit, although the decision is not clear cut, since for two cases (light brightness and speed), the chi square increased.” (p.69)​

Note they say “better fit”. They do not state the differences became non-significant. They state “better fit” because (and what you have clearly missed in the “revised” tests), while some Chi-square test statistics decreased (became relatively less significant) they remained significant!* Meaning of course the conclusion that the UNKNOWNS are significantly different from the KNOWNS – even on this spuriously revised analysis - still stands! Not only that – the previously non-significant result (brightness) became significant!

One could legitimately conclude from the results of the revised analysis that it is stronger evidence of a significant difference between the UNKNOWNS and the KNOWNS – and not (as they have done) weaker…

So it seems that Dr Hynek remains correct:

”…the conclusion of the Battelle report completely disregards the results of these tests – almost brazenly, as if they did not exist. (Hynek, J. A. (1977) The Hynek UFO Report. Sphere Books. London. p. 273) (bolding my own. Rr.)​

No matter how much you attempt to ignore the actual data and the results of analyses Jocce – any fair minded person who actually takes the time to examine the data and the results would be forced to conclude precisely as Dr Hynek does. There is no getting away from the fact that the report’s conclusions (as you have pointed to) are in direct opposition to the actual data and results.

Like Condon after them, they simply ignore the results to conclude according to preconceived notions of what they want the conclusions to be – not what the data and results are telling them about what should be the legitimate conclusions to be drawn (and UFO debunkers wonder why people loudly proclaim a conspiracy… in both the concusions of the Battelle and Condon reports - there is the evidence!)

*Look up a Chi-Square distribution table if you don’t believe me (eg; http://www.medcalc.org/manual/chi-square-table.php)

 

[Rramjet]

What´s the use for repeating the unknown thing over and over again. I think it´s proofed already that some unidentified objects has been shown to be under intelligent control and have probe not to be man-made. Surely they remain unknown but also known what they are NOT.

Precisely. In a number of cases there does seem to be intelligent control - and a good example of such a case is the Tehran case:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(#2)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
(http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

And especially in cases where “beings” are noted in conjunction with UFOs. For example:

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Blue Book case report
(http://www.nicap.org/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

And it is certainly the case that there are practically an uncountable number of cases (including the above) that simply defy mundane explanation. Thus your conclusion that UFOs are not “man made” seems very compelling.

Everybody is then free to take the next step and draw conclusions about where the evidence seems to lead us. The evidence seems to lead us to ET-hypotesis. Even if we accept other hypothesis as well it doesn´t mean that ET-hypothesis must be thrown to carbage.

Indeed. As Darwin noted: ”I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observation.” (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2192). There is also much circumstantial evidence (intelligent control, beings) that make the ETH compelling – not proven – not even correct – just compelling.

Surely there are hoaxes and there are things that people think they saw that are influenced by media. It doesn´t mean that there can´t be ET´s as well.

Yes. And the Battelle report shows us that a highly significant percentage of UFO reports (> 20%) can be categorised as UNKNOWN and the influence of the media in maintaining a climate of ridicule and denial is well documented (eg; http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf).

ET´s may not be proven but I see why people are attacking so strongly against any testimonies saying there are. Why so loudly and angrily? This isn´t a debate about religion but an interesting phenomena which I would think that sceptic and scifi-oriented people (very often they are same people) would analyze open mindidly. Instead I see people speaking from their belief-system who seem to feel offended and must attack and ridicule the most astonishing phenomena man-kind has ever experienced. Even when there are scientific studies they are sweeped under the rug.

I wonder why is this psychologically so intimidating to people. The governments have shown to take this phenomena very seriously and studied it even secretly and lied same time that there is no an interest into it.

Perhaps it IS a debate about religion. The UFO debunkers do seem to have a faith-based belief that all UFOs can be attributed to misidentifications of mundane objects and hoaxes etc - and they do seem to maintain this belief system in the face of the scientific evidence. The “god” of their religion is “skepticism”. They have co-opted a healthy, questioning agnosticism and turned it into a god of denial whose maxim is “It cannot be, therefore it isn’t”.

I wonder where does the arrogance come from to people who seem to say that science already has all the answers and rely their belief system accordingly. Every one who has ever relied his view of the world and cosmos based on the latest science has always been a somewhat wrong because science is constantly changing itself. It should be a very good tool to examine universe and reality but I think we should remember that scientific perspective is broadening all the time and UFOlogy is probably the next great barrier and taboo to be crossed.

Such arrogance is born of another religion: ” Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-26.htm). Then along came the enlightenment and science - and immediately science was coopted to this cause. Science was then the new god that gave us power and control over nature. Then, forgetting history, the UFO debunkers have simply taken this arrogant god and turned it into “If science says it cannot be so, then it is not so.”

What if we would have listened to debunkers only in history? We would have never landed to the moon or found new continents or came up with great new technology and science since there has been always those loud negativists who have argued the impossiblity of phenomenons and things who have leaned to the science at that time and have not wanted to watch "over the horizon".

Precisely. Historically, if we had listened to the “noisy negativists”, we would never have crawled out of the trees. Their “chatter” seems incessant, and unfortunately many seem to listen to – and be taken in – by their shrill and insistent cries.

UFO-phenomena should be taken seriously and instead of semantics one could argue what we really know about the phenomena and really study the evidence no matter where it leads us.

Like any true religion, in the religion of UFO (and paranormal) debunking, the “evidence” is simply coopted to their belief system. Anything that confirms their belief system is loudly hailed from the tree-tops, while contradictory evidence is either ignored outright or noisily ridiculed and denied. One only has to look to Jocce’s recent posts concerning the conclusions of the Battelle study to confirm this – where he takes the unfounded conclusions of the report as gospel while ignoring the actual evidence – the data and the results of analysis.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Compare this:

Moreover, how can anything UNKNOWN be assessed as “highly improbable” (or even “highly probable”) to be anything at all? It is simply a nonsense to suppose such an assessment can be made.

With this, from immediately before it:

[...]- if “UNKNOWN” is not “outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge”, then what is it?

Blimey.

And I'll repeat my answer from above, in case you missed it - what something classified "as unknown" can be other than "outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge" is...something that is unknown.

Or let me give you an example as you seem to keep making this simple mistake. Let's say that an account was being given of a card trick that someone saw. They had to leave before the end and never saw the person from the audience reveal the card that they had chosen. When telling the story the person could only say that the value of the card that the volunteer had chosen was unknown. Nobody hearing the story could say that the value of the card chosen was anything other than unknown either, unless they had been there at the time it was revealed. This only means that the witness and anyone the witness relates the story to can only say that the card is unknown. It does not mean that the value of the card is outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge, or that with more information that the unknown of the value of the card wouldn't become a known.