UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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

I don't see how spending 15+ pages to disucuss the results, redo the test and analyze it again can be described as "completely disregard" but to each his own I guess.

I guess I’ll have to state it in another way then:

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

Better?

I quoted:

”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)​

And would you like to present the suggested explanation for this increase that the authors of the Battelle study presents or do I have to do it for you?

Happy to oblige. The authors state:

” However, it can again be pointed out that the reporting of these two characteristics is highly subjective and is open to question. The estimation of speed is especially open to question because of the impossibility of accurately determining it visually.” (p. 69)​

Funnily enough those explanations have nothing whatsoever to do with the increase in the test statistic. If subjectivity were a real issue, then the determination of speed would have been both overestimated and underestimated in equal proportion between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS – meaning of course that subjectivity in this particular test has nothing at all to do with the reported results. The same applies to estimated brightness.

So we have now demonstrated the report’s authors have not only ignored the results, but they have displayed an obvious (and appalling for people who are supposedly writing the conclusions of the report) lack of understanding about the data and the tests themselves!

I stated:
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!

You must completely have missed that there was a much better fit on all points analyzed except the two you mentioned and that there is a plausible reason for this misfit.

A significant difference is a significant difference Jocce – no matter what type of spin you try to put on it…

I stated:
”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!”

That's not the conclusion at all. Read the report:

”… since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS…”​

”…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.)​

Seriously? You think anyone buys that a better fit is stronger evidence of a significant difference between UNKNOWNS and KNOWNS.

A significant difference is a significant difference Jocce – no matter what type of spin you try to put on it…

Since the resuts were not at all completely ignored it seems as if he is completely incorrect in making that statement.

Let me put it another way then:

”…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.)​

I stated:
” 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.”

I disagree and have explained why.

And I have shown your “explanations” to be completely erroneous.

No matter how you try to spin it Jocce, the results of the tests show that the authors ignored those results in drawing their conclusions - and the data and the tests themselves shows that more than overall more than 20% of UFO more than 2000 reports were classified as UNKNOWN. It also shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely that a categorisation of UNKNOWN would be the result (and for the most reliable reports, 38% of them were classified as UNKNOWN!).

Those are the FACTS of the matter Jocce.

 

[Jono74]

How does one even begin to explain that sighting in mundane terms? Those oscillations simply defy mundane explanation. I have others that are even more strange - if anyone is interested I can relate some of those too...

Yeah, I'm interested to hear of some of your others. Sounds like you have a fair few - all first hand? And thanks for sharing, btw.

I have a few too - one from 11:23 - 11:30 new years eve('10-'11), coincidently while waiting for a reply of a skeptoid forum discussion. Odd, but pretty garden variety, and nothing special.
Lights in the sky are pretty common I reckon. Interesting, definitely, and I would LOVE to discover what it/they are - (who wouldnt), but I'm resigned to the fact of the 'UFO Curse' being in full effect. I'll never know.

Do you reckon 'research' is actually applicable to UFO phenomena? Its just really a huge amount of peoples experiences/stories/anecdotes, and of course some film & stills. Nobody on earth, I believe, knows one iota more than anyone else. We're all equals there.

And just randomly - my grandfather had a neat saucer/disc story, from ww2 days. I believe him.
As I do many (well...some, anyway) others, who describe some things that I will go out on a limb here and assert are totally unexplainable. I dont reckon there's many around who would deny people are seeing some unexplainable things, but there should be no-one claiming they know what they are. (Here I mean the alien/et's or whatever)
And the 95% explainable comment I made, I cant provide a ref, but I'm pretty sure I read it in the NZ defense dept's recently released 'ufo files' - maybe it was 90, I dunno. You say 20% unexplainable - well, maybe, depending on source, quality(heh heh...) of source, I dont really care. It's hair splitting, and I dont see it as important. It has no bearing on the end result, that we are all at a loss to explain some phenomena.

I would like to know hard nosed sceptics' take on some report - whatever one, you choose, where the person reporting is (you feel)credible, and the phenomena is pretty unambiguously whacky - everyone must have at least one of those, insert yours here. I guess my point is, does the hardcore sceptic, who constantly professes that yeah, sure there are unexplainable things, but this is not one, actually admit to being baffled by a particular/specific case?

Thanks to all the others who have shared some unexplained, and ones where an explanation has emerged. As James Randi says - anyone can be fooled, and very easily, no matter what your specialty or qualification.

And Rramjet - what does one hope to discover or learn by researching this, that one couldnt just discover by turning on the news, if any major 'development' were to occur. Apart from being fun, of course.

I Ratant - damn your ant! May it die. almost poked at it again...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would like to know hard nosed sceptics' take on some report - whatever one, you choose, where the person reporting is (you feel)credible, and the phenomena is pretty unambiguously whacky - everyone must have at least one of those, insert yours here. I guess my point is, does the hardcore sceptic, who constantly professes that yeah, sure there are unexplainable things, but this is not one, actually admit to being baffled by a particular/specific case?

It wouldn't matter. Witnesses can be mistaken. They can miss details which would make an explanation obvious. They can be lying. Their memories can be changed.

Just because the information we have about one particular case makes it impossible to explain conclusively doesn't mean that there is no mundane explanation, just that we don't have enough information to provide it.

What we need is real, physical evidence. This has, thus far, failed to materialise.

 

[Jono74]

Yeah - I meant to pre empt the 'no evidence' point in last post, but rambled too much and forgot. Of course there is no evidence. Thats the one glaring, inescapable fact of all this, and the reason its even a discussion topic. Thats a given, and moot. And yes people are mistaken etc. Still, does anyone have a case where they think - hmmmm.

ETA(?) I'd add that I dont reckon real, physical evidence will EVER materialise either. Unless u call that bit of broken toaster oven that guy wears round his neck, evidence. The one who led an expedition to 'Mel's Hole'.

And would I be correct to think, from your first line, that you believe everything is explainable naturally(? right word?), or am I jumping a bit far there?

I guess, do you personally know of a particular case that cant yet be explained conclusively?

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh, I think you’ll find they tried their best to assign mundane causes to every case examined.

Only if witness perception is assumed to be infallible, which as we know, is an incorrect assumption to make.

Often when investigating UFO reports first hand, I find that the most difficult part is matching up what is being said (verbal or written testimony) with any evidence presented to support it (photos, videos etc.) But I don't discount any report because of discrepancies, I understand that they are inevitable and try to work through them.

Another common thing I notice is that if you actually get back to source (the actual person who had the sighting), the testimony they give is not so sensational as the versions of it you see written up by UFOlogists and several examples I have come across over the years have become unrecognisable after going through the UFOlogy machinery usually in order for it to appear like a mundane explanation is not possible.

 

[Jocce]

A significant difference is a significant difference Jocce – no matter what type of spin you try to put on it…

The commonly accepted cutoff for statistical significance is 5%. Of the 6 examined properties, 4 are balancing on the edge (1 over, 3 under) and two are much under the limit. The two properties that are most under are speed and number. As they mention in the study, groups with 11 or more objects seem to be harder to identify and some of the excessive speeds can be attributed to inaccuracies in estimates as well as a number of radar only sightings that have been impossible to identify.

Another thing to take into consideration is that for each property tested, a portion is "unknown":

Property: unknown/total
Color: 31/434
Number: 5/434
Shape: 116/434
Duration: 104/434
Speed: 136/434
Brightness: 293/434

Considering the subjective nature of the data, the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown) I think it's fair to conclude that the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS. Of course, the authors realize all this and also state:

The inacurracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident

 

[Jocce]

the data and the tests themselves shows that more than overall more than 20% of UFO more than 2000 reports were classified as UNKNOWN. It also shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely that a categorisation of UNKNOWN would be the result (and for the most reliable reports, 38% of them were classified as UNKNOWN!).

Those are the FACTS of the matter Jocce.

And, out of 434 objects sightings that were identified as UNKNOWN, there were only 12 that were described with sufficient detail by reliable observers that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". Among those is an (in)famous blimp from Rouge river...

 

[Jocce]

You say 20% unexplainable - well, maybe, depending on source, quality(heh heh...) of source, I dont really care. It's hair splitting, and I dont see it as important. It has no bearing on the end result, that we are all at a loss to explain some phenomena.

Interesting that you don't care about quality of source and claim that it has no bearing on the end result, that we are all at a loss to explain some phenomena. The sole reason we're at a loss to explain some phenomena is that we lack quality data. And I mean explain it as either a mundane or "alien" object.

I would like to know hard nosed sceptics' take on some report - whatever one, you choose, where the person reporting is (you feel)credible, and the phenomena is pretty unambiguously whacky

Start by reading the thread you're in. Several cases has been discussed.

 

[Jocce]

Another thing to take into consideration is that for each property tested, a portion is "unknown":

Property: unknown/total
Color: 31/434
Number: 5/434
Shape: 116/434
Duration: 104/434
Speed: 136/434
Brightness: 293/434

To remove ambiguity I should clarify that by unknown I mean "Not stated". As in out of 434 cases, the shape was not stated in 116 and the speed not in 136.

 

[Jono74]

Hi Jocce

Interesting that you don't care about quality of source and claim that it has no bearing on the end result, that we are all at a loss to explain some phenomena. The sole reason we're at a loss to explain some phenomena is that we lack quality data. And I mean explain it as either a mundane or "alien" object.



Start by reading the thread you're in. Several cases has been discussed.

When I say I dont really care, I mean I dont really care about the percentages. If some one says 5% unexplained, and someone else says for eg 30%, my point is that some ARE unexplained. I didnt mean quality of source. And "lack quality data", that being an interesting wording for "I dont belive witness report"? Of someone credible, clear headed and sober, as sceptical as the best, and not claiming 'aliens'? I quess quality data is only ever going to be the report of someone credible, and observant and critical.

Your second comment - re read the thread - yeah, I will. Just looked this am to find comments have been moved here from another thread. Felt almost violated...
Thanks for the reply, gotta run.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We must first note that the value of the card lies within the range of normal values for a present-day pack of 52 cards. Imagine we then see a card that does not correspond to any of those values (it is therefore designated an UNKNOWN card). We then conclude that the observed card lies outside the range of present-day “card” knowledge.

The same thing applies with UFOs. We know the range of mundane things explicable within present-day scientific knowledge. Then we see a UFO that does not correspond to anything within that range (it is therefore designated an UNKNOWN object). We then conclude that the UFO lies outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

Simple, basic, straightforward.

The problem with this, however, is that the report you're citing doesn't match your analogy, but does match mine. If they had meant that those 20% of cases defied mundane explanation, then I'm sure they'd be perfectly capable of actually saying so explicitly. Given that that would be a huge conclusion to come to, with vast and far-reaching consequences, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't state it explicitly.

 

[Rramjet]

The commonly accepted cutoff for statistical significance is 5%. Of the 6 examined properties, 4 are balancing on the edge (1 over, 3 under) and two are much under the limit. The two properties that are most under are speed and number.

Your statements here are (unsurprisingly to me) once again aggregiously misrepresentative of the data! Let’s look at the original Chi-Square analyses:

COLOUR: | χ2 = 26.15| (df=8)| p<0.001 cutoff = 26.124
NUMBER: | χ2 = 40.73| (df=4)| p<0.001 cutoff = 18.467
SHAPE: | χ2 = 29.05| (df=6)| p<0.001 cutoff = 22.458
DURATION: | χ2 = 49.49| (df=7)| p<0.001 cutoff = 24.322
SPEED: | χ2 = 37.93| (df=5)| p<0.001 cutoff = 20.515
BRIGHTNESS: | χ2 = 5.85| (df=5)| p<0.05 cutoff = 11.070

Thus we can see in the first analysis all characteristics between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS are highly significant with the exception of “Brightness”, which is non-significant.

Now let us look at the “revised” Chi-Square analyses.

COLOUR: | χ2 = 13.40| (df=7)| p<0.05 cutoff = 14.067
NUMBER: | χ2 = 23.73| (df=4)| p<0.001 cutoff = 18.467
SHAPE: | χ2 = 11.46| (df=5)| p<0.05 cutoff = 11.070
DURATION: | χ2 = 14.43| (df=7)| p<0.05 cutoff = 14.067
SPEED: | χ2 = 43.71| (df=4)| p<0.001 cutoff = 18.467
BRIGHTNESS: | χ2 = 10.68| (df=4)| p<0.05 cutoff = 9.488

So we can see that all remain significant except for “Colour”. However as the p<0.10 cutoff = 12.017 - so the alpha value for colour is probably around p<0.06 – which in the scheme of things might as well be significant (That is, what is the practical difference between a 5% and a 6% chance of making a type I error – rejecting the null hypothesis – there is no difference - when it is true? Compare that with the “Brightness” statistic in the original analysis above where the chance of a type I error rises to well over 20% (p<0.20 cutoff=7.289; p<0.975 cutoff=0.831) – there really is a non-significant value)

So how about you cease misrepresenting the data and test results in your statements?

As they mention in the study, groups with 11 or more objects seem to be harder to identify and some of the excessive speeds can be attributed to inaccuracies in estimates as well as a number of radar only sightings that have been impossible to identify.

Once again your statements are a misrepresentation (or a complete misunderstanding!) of what the authors actually stated:

” Another interesting aspect of these new tests is that there are only two large discrepancies in all of the groups. These are for the 11 or more groups in the classification by number of objects per sighting and for the over-400-mph and meteor-like group for the classification by speed. The first was relatively unchanged by deletion of the astronomical sightings principally because of the concentration of sightings in the single-object category. The second was slightly increased by the removal of the astronomical sightings from the meteor-like classification. However, the main discrepancy, that of the excess of UNKNOWNS in the over-400-mph class, was little changed.” (p. 76)​

What they are stating here is that there was a noticeable discrepancy in the size of the groups (the number of reports) in the “Number of objects” and the “Speed” analyses in the categories stipulated (for example in the “Number of Objects” analysis, for the “11 or more” category, it was KNOWNS=11; UNKNOWNS=25) and they are contending that this discrepancy could have contributed to the significant Chi-Square result… well duhhh … but how many KNOWNS came in groups of 11 or more! (or for the “Speed” – how many KNOWNS in that era could reach speeds of over 400mph!)

The authors had previously stated:

”It can be assumed that some of the excessive speeds are inaccuracies in estimates by observers. However, some radar sightings, which are practically impossible to identify, show objects with speeds of 1, 000 to 2, 000 mph and over, and these reports account for a number of these UNKNOWNS.” (p. 69)​

Oh, It can be assumed” huh? One of the things about excessive speeds is that they a very fast. If you have ever watched a jet plane go over at any appreciable altitude, does it seem very fast to you? Not really. Those “excessive speeds” are more likely to be an underestimate than and overestimate!

And the radar objects “are impossible to identify”? How about anything over “1,000 to 2,000 mph” being impossible to explain in mundane terms – which is of course the very reason they were given an UNKNOWN categorisation!

Once again Jocce you seem to persist with statements that misrepresent the actual data and the statements of the authors. Is this because you really don’t understand – or is it deliberate?

Another thing to take into consideration is that for each property tested, a portion is "unknown":

Property: unknown/total
Color: 31/434
Number: 5/434
Shape: 116/434
Duration: 104/434
Speed: 136/434
Brightness: 293/434

The only thing I can do to counter your persistent misrepresentations in your statements is to keep presenting the FACTS. For example:

To remove ambiguity I should clarify that by unknown I mean "Not stated". As in out of 434 cases, the shape was not stated in 116 and the speed not in 136.

You seem to miss the point that the Chi-Square analysis is a comparative analysis and if you remove those KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS from the analysis the statistic becomes 20.13 (df=7) and that is still significant at the p<0.005 level! But removing them is not warranted because there is a comparator group to assess them against!

Considering the subjective nature of the data…

Yes it is subjective, but the critical point to note is that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were! Please take the time to read back over that statement carefully.

…the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown)…

Tell me Jocce …what does that actually mean?!

…I think it's fair to conclude that the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS. Of course, the authors realize all this and also state:

They don’t “also state – they stated…

” The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion, of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident.” (p. 94)​

..which statement you merely (attempted to) paraphrase.

But of course we know there were trends in the data! For example: the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were!


I stated:
”… the data and the tests themselves shows that more than overall more than 20% of UFO more than 2000 reports were classified as UNKNOWN. It also shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely that a categorisation of UNKNOWN would be the result (and for the most reliable reports, 38% of them were classified as UNKNOWN!).

Those are the FACTS of the matter Jocce.”

And, out of 434 objects sightings that were identified as UNKNOWN, there were only 12 that were described with sufficient detail by reliable observers that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". Among those is an (in)famous blimp from Rouge river...

That would be Rogue River Jocce (though it does not surprise me that you would get even the name of a case wrong – judging by your statements above I would positively expect you to get it wrong).

The “modelling” exercise was conducted using very strict criteria (part of which was to rule out the night sightings – which of course left only 186 UNKNOWNS in the “modelling” analysis from the very start! So your statement regarding “434” object sightings is once again misleading!) They also “re-evaluated” many of these 186 and recategorised them as KNOWN! The way they did this was to consider that many of the (erstwhile) UNKNOWNS could have been KNOWNS if viewed under different conditions! That is, they only included object sightings where – ”there was little possibility that their shapes, as seen, could have been distorted sufficiently by one cause or another to render them unrecognizable.” (p. 77) …and you complain about subjective value judgements! Under those conditions it is actually extraordinarily surprising that they actually got 12 GOOD sightings to examine from the bunch at all!

I can only reiterate:

No matter how you try to spin it Jocce, the results of the tests show that the authors ignored those results in drawing their conclusions - and the data and the tests themselves shows that more than overall more than 20% of UFO more than 2000 reports were classified as UNKNOWN. It also shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely that a categorisation of UNKNOWN would be the result (and for the most reliable reports, 38% of them were classified as UNKNOWN!).

Those are the FACTS of the matter Jocce.

 

[Rramjet]

The sole reason we're at a loss to explain some phenomena is that we lack quality data. And I mean explain it as either a mundane or "alien" object.

Oh, it’s not the lack of quality data that is the problem – it is that quality data we do have simply defies mundane explanation – and once we are there (having reached that conclusion) – we have a BIG problem. For while the ETH seems a compelling explanatory hypothesis - we simply don’t have any hard evidence to support that conclusion (an alien body or spaceship or other alien artefact). So we have all the evidence we need to conclude “non-mundane” (meaning something outside our present knowledge of science and nature) but we don’t have the data to “prove” any of the hypothetical explanations.

That is the problem in a nutshell. Then of course what happens is that people begin to backtrack. If we cannot prove it positively is something (eg; ET) then perhaps there’s something wrong with our observations. Then the observation have to be “explained away” - and immediately what is plausible becomes lost in what is possible. It is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken – therefore they are! But ask if it is plausible that all the reliable eyewitnesses (so many of them!) are all mistaken? No of course it is not plausible that they are. So of course there is nothing wrong with the observations – it is just that we abhor not having positive explanations.

Of course the ETH fits very nicely into the evidence … but we just cannot be sure… if only they would land and show themselves we cry – oh yes then we might “believe”! (but of course they don’t …and who can blame them. Why would they need us when they can take what they need without involving us in direct communication? And ethically – if they are ethical beings – and to survive as a interstellar species they would have to be - they would be prevented from doing so – our own history shows us that.)

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, I see you still haven't responded to MY POST. Does this mean you are conceding that the letter being factually inaccurate (for example, due to a hoax) is a plausible explanation?

 

[Jocce]

Your statements here are (unsurprisingly to me) once again aggregiously misrepresentative of the data! Let’s look at the original Chi-Square analyses:

No, let's not look at that because the KNOWN group had an overrepresentation of astronomical phenomena which makes the result irrelevant.

Now let us look at the “revised” Chi-Square analyses.

COLOUR: | ?2 = 13.40| (df=7)| p<0.05 cutoff = 14.067
NUMBER: | ?2 = 23.73| (df=4)| p<0.001 cutoff = 18.467
SHAPE: | ?2 = 11.46| (df=5)| p<0.05 cutoff = 11.070
DURATION: | ?2 = 14.43| (df=7)| p<0.05 cutoff = 14.067
SPEED: | ?2 = 43.71| (df=4)| p<0.001 cutoff = 18.467
BRIGHTNESS: | ?2 = 10.68| (df=4)| p<0.05 cutoff = 9.488

So we can see that all remain significant except for “Colour”.

Why do you feel the need to prove my point? Four are balancing on the edge of significance (colour, shape, duration, brightness) and two are much under.

However as the p<0.10 cutoff = 12.017 - so the alpha value for colour is probably around p<0.06 – which in the scheme of things might as well be significant (That is, what is the practical difference between a 5% and a 6%[/b] chance of making a type I error – rejecting the null hypothesis – there is no difference - when it is true?

Alternatively, considering the incompleteness of the data and the inherent inaccuracies it might as well be insignificant.

Compare that with the “Brightness” statistic in the original analysis above where the chance of a type I error rises to well over 20% (p<0.20 cutoff=7.289; p<0.975 cutoff=0.831) – there really is a non-significant value)

No, let's not compare with the initial analysis because the KNOWN group had an overrepresentation of astronomical phenomena which makes the result irrelevant. If you could just remove irrelevant things like this frpm your posts they would be a lot shorter and make it easier to adress any substantive points you might have.

So how about you cease misrepresenting the data and test results in your statements?

It's obvious to anyone that I have neither misrepresented data nor results.

Once again your statements are a misrepresentation (or a complete misunderstanding!) of what the authors actually stated:

On page 68 and 69 you will find that the authors infact say that it seems to be harder to identify multiple objects and that some of the excessive speeds can be attributed to inaccuracies in estimates by observers. Just read the report and stop shouting about misrepresentation.

Once again Jocce you seem to persist with statements that misrepresent the actual data and the statements of the authors. Is this because you really don’t understand – or is it deliberate?

Just read the report and stop the nonsense accusations.

Yes it is subjective, but the critical point to note is that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were! Please take the time to read back over that statement carefully.

Did you make sure that this is a statistically significant variation?

Tell me Jocce …what does that actually mean?!

It means that most of the UFO reports are lacking in detail and quality (i.e. they are crappy).

They don’t “also state – they stated…

” The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion, of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident.” (p. 94)

..which statement you merely (attempted to) paraphrase.

ehh...I don't quite follow you here. I said:

The inacurracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident

Isn't that like....exactly the same sentence?

To summarize. Considering the subjective nature of the data, the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown) I think it's fair to conclude that the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS.

That would be Rogue River Jocce (though it does not surprise me that you would get even the name of a case wrong – judging by your statements above I would positively expect you to get it wrong).

Sorry, typo.

The “modelling” exercise was conducted using very strict criteria (part of which was to rule out the night sightings – which of course left only 186 UNKNOWNS in the “modelling” analysis from the very start! So your statement regarding “434” object sightings is once again misleading!)

There were 434 sightings in total that were identified as UNKNOWN. This is fact.
From those, a subset of 12 were selected that were described with sufficient detail by reliable observers that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". That's fact too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, it’s not the lack of quality data that is the problem – it is that quality data we do have simply defies mundane explanation – and once we are there (having reached that conclusion) – we have a BIG problem. For while the ETH seems a compelling explanatory hypothesis - we simply don’t have any hard evidence to support that conclusion (an alien body or spaceship or other alien artefact). So we have all the evidence we need to conclude “non-mundane” (meaning something outside our present knowledge of science and nature) but we don’t have the data to “prove” any of the hypothetical explanations.

That is the problem in a nutshell. Then of course what happens is that people begin to backtrack. If we cannot prove it positively is something (eg; ET) then perhaps there’s something wrong with our observations. Then the observation have to be “explained away” - and immediately what is plausible becomes lost in what is possible. It is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken – therefore they are! But ask if it is plausible that all the reliable eyewitnesses (so many of them!) are all mistaken? No of course it is not plausible that they are. So of course there is nothing wrong with the observations – it is just that we abhor not having positive explanations.

Of course the ETH fits very nicely into the evidence … but we just cannot be sure… if only they would land and show themselves we cry – oh yes then we might “believe”! (but of course they don’t …and who can blame them. Why would they need us when they can take what they need without involving us in direct communication? And ethically – if they are ethical beings – and to survive as a interstellar species they would have to be - they would be prevented from doing so – our own history shows us that.)

And yet you've proven time and again that your version of a process of elimination fails. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, Campeche, and Delphos Kansas?

Are there any cases you can point to where your version of a process of elimination was shown to work and the explanation turned out to be non-mundane?

 

[Jocce]

Oh, it’s not the lack of quality data that is the problem – it is that quality data we do have simply defies mundane explanation

Saying so doesn't magically make it so. Over a year spent on this thread and you have not been able to present any solid evidence that some UFOs are "alien".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, it’s not the lack of quality data that is the problem – it is that quality data we do have simply defies mundane explanation [...]

No. You are still misrepresenting what the data you are citing actually shows. It doesn't matter how much you want the data to support what you're saying, it only supports what you're saying if it actually supports what you're saying. And it doesn't. Simply repeating your statement while failing to acknowledge that it's unsupported doesn't make it supported, it just makes you look disingenuous.

 

[Rramjet]

No, let's not look at that because the KNOWN group had an overrepresentation of astronomical phenomena which makes the result irrelevant.

Let me show you by analogy how both you and they (the report’s authors) are incorrect in this respect:

I want to find if there is a difference between two groups of things. One group contains bicycles and cars. The other group contains apples and oranges. Blind to what the groups actually contain, I run a Chi-Square analysis for SHAPE and SPEED. It turns out that there are significant differences between the two groups on both these characteristics. …Then you note that in one group there are 300 cars and 5 bicycles (cars are “overrepresented”). What you are contending is that there is no difference between the groups because of that “overrepresentation? Nonsense! Of course there is a difference - and the Chi-Square analyses legitimately showed us that.

(…and it must therefore be noted that when they “remove” those astronomical cases from the data in later analyses – they do so illegitimately!)

Why do you feel the need to prove my point? Four are balancing on the edge of significance (colour, shape, duration, brightness) and two are much under.

Tell me: What is the practical (real world) difference between a 5% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true and a 6% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true? (…and for “two of them” there is a mere 0.01% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true!)

Alternatively, considering the incompleteness of the data and the inherent inaccuracies it might as well be insignificant.

What “incompleteness of the data”? What “inherent inaccuracies”? Do you have any idea what you are talking about here? You seem to be basing your statements merely on what others (in this case the report’s authors) tell you is true. Jocce, you simply must be more sceptical of mere unfounded statements made by others. You must look to see if those statements are founded on the evidence. If those statements are in contradiction to the evidence, then you should reject the statements – not the evidence!

I stated:
”… the critical point to note is that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were! Please take the time to read back over that statement carefully.”

Did you make sure that this is a statistically significant variation?

There is a trend in the data. It is a simple probabilistic statement of known fact. The more reliable the report, the more likely it would be categorised as UNKOWN (and critically, for the most reliable reports, a full 38% of them were categorised as unknown!).

It means that most of the UFO reports are lacking in detail and quality (i.e. they are crappy).

You will note below that the “insufficient information” categories (your “lacking in detail”) make up but a small proportion of the whole. You will also note that the GOOD and EXCELLENT reliability cases represent 44.2% of the whole (even if we ignore the fact that the other cases seemed reliable enough to categorise KNOWN objects within them!).

You stated:

Considering the subjective nature of the data, the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown) I think it's fair to conclude that the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS. Of course, the authors realize all this and also state:

To which I responded:

They don’t “also state – they stated…

” The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion, of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident.” (p. 94)​

..which statement you merely (attempted to) paraphrase.

But of course we know there were trends in the data! For example: the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were!

And now you say:

ehh...I don't quite follow you here. I said:

” The inacurracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident.”​

Isn't that like....exactly the same sentence?

So you in fact did not “say” what you contended you said… Look again at your original statement at the head of this exchange...

To summarize. Considering the subjective nature of the data…

Yes it is subjective, but the critical point to note is that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were! Please take the time to read back over that statement carefully.

…the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown)…

Tell me Jocce …what does that actually mean?!

…I think it's fair to conclude that the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS.

However the ”tests” showed there was a significant difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS. So it is not “fair to conclude” (as you have done) at all.

There were 434 sightings in total that were identified as UNKNOWN. This is fact.

It must feel good to be at last making straight up factual statements surely?

From those, a subset of 12 were selected that were described with sufficient detail by reliable observers that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". That's fact too.

No argument there. In my previous answer to you on this point my objection was principally to your inclusion of ”only 12”. Given the criteria imposed in this section of the analysis and their (in my opinion illegitimate) exercise in “re-evaluation” of the UNKOWNS, it may actually be considered surprising that they managed to derive any reports to attempt their “modelling” exercise!

 

[Rramjet]

And yet you've proven time and again that your version of a process of elimination fails. Remember your DebriWP Debacle…

You mean this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)? I merely noted that the trajectories of some of the debris seemed anomalous and asked if anyone could come up with a plausible explanation. Do you have one?

Campeche…

You mean this case?

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/mexico/mexico.dwt)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

”The first object detected on radar was quite close to the airplane, yet remains unexplained.” (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)​

Perhaps you can explain it?

…and Delphos Kansas?

You mean this case?

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

No …don’t tell me …let me use my psychic powers … a "hoax" and a "fairy ring" … right?

Are there any cases you can point to where your version of a process of elimination was shown to work and the explanation turned out to be non-mundane?

My version? The process of elimination is what it is RoboT. But let’s see… how about this case?

The Cosford Incident (30-31 March 1993)
(http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)

Got any plausible mundane explanations yet?