UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” 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.

Perhaps you would care to explain the following case in plausible mundane terms then?

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

Over a year spent on this thread and you have not been able to present any solid evidence that some UFOs are "alien".

You mean by “alien” of course something along the lines of:

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality.

Perhaps you could come up with a plausible mundane explanation of the above case then?

 

[Rramjet]

No. You are still misrepresenting what the data you are citing actually shows.

That is a an unfounded assertion and merely stating an unfounded assertion does not somehow magically confer veracity on it.

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.

Perhaps you can come up with a plausible mundane explanation for this case then?

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

Simply repeating your statement while failing to acknowledge that it's unsupported doesn't make it supported, it just makes you look disingenuous.

What statement? I think you will find that it is actually you who has made the unsupported statements here my friend.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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?

No, let me guess. "Aliens", right? Because you've eliminated hoax using your version of a process of elimination.

Right? You're stating that it absolutely cannot be a hoax because you've used your version of a process of elimination.

 

[Jocce]

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

You don't know what you're talking about. You're basically saying that in a clinical trial it's ok to have an overrepresentation of one demographic in the control group.

The whole purpose of the chi square test in the Bettelle study was to find out statistically if the UNKNOWNS are basically unidentified KNOWNS. The first test done showed definately that that is not the case. One major reason being that there is an overepresentation of astronomical objects in the KNOWN group.. So duh! Obviously they are different.

What you are contending is that there is no difference between the groups because of that “overrepresentation?

No, they are different partly because of that overrepresentation.

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!)

Exactly, four values are balancing on the margin. Are we going to interpret those as significant or insignificant? Considering the incompleteness of the data and the inherent inaccuracies in eywitness estimates...etc....you know my (and the authors) opinion. Can not confirm or deny...

What “incompleteness of the data”?

There are 240 reports in the category "Insufficient info.". Didn't you notice that?

What “inherent inaccuracies”?

You do know that the data studied consist of subjective experiences right? Some of those experiences reported long time after the event in question?

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!

This is quite funny coming from someone who, in my opinion, is so obviously blinded by his beliefs. You should try to be more openminded in your interpretation of those few pieces of data we have available.

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.”

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!).

And I was asking a simple enough question. Did you make sure that this is a statistically significant variation?

You stated:

To which I responded:

And now you say:

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

You're confused. How are these two sentences different:

”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.”

”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)

Are you complaining that I didn't supply the source? (p. 94)?

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.

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.

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

No argument there.<snip>

So now you agree? Why did you claim just yesterday that what I wrote was misleading (see below)?

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!

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps you would care to explain the following case in plausible mundane terms then?

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

Sure, if you can provide some evidence to be examined. That webpage contains a lot of claims but no evidence. One has to pay to get the sources and I don't know if I am prepared to do that. I don't have much hope that this case is any better documented than the others that we have discussed.

Just so there is no confusion about what I mean:

This is a claim on the webpage:
Their official police report (classified Police In Confidence) stated that the UFO passed over the base "at great velocity ... at an altitude of approximately 1000 feet".

Actual evidence would be the police report.

You mean by “alien” of course something along the lines of:

Exactly

Perhaps you could come up with a plausible mundane explanation of the above case then?

Maybe, if I had some evidence to examine.

 

[Jocce]

Re. The Bettelle study

I really have a much bigger problem with the Battelle study than anything that has been discussed so far and that is that there is basically no difference between the two groups "Unknown" and "Insufficient info."

In both cases, the object(s) is unidentified and the only reason some get into the UNKOWN category is because the researchers can't think of a mundane explanation that fits the reported characteristics (and also believe that they have all info they need to identify it available). That's a fallable approach as has been shown in this very thread.

I also cringe when I find the (in)famous blimp from Rogue River in the UNKNOWN category and even described as one of the most reliable reports.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

So you're now saying that your own cite is incorrect? Way to back yourself up with evidence.

That is a an unfounded assertion and merely stating an unfounded assertion does not somehow magically confer veracity on it.

We've been batting it back and forth for the last 4 or 5 pages. Is this going to be like when you claimed I hadn't provided any evidence that hypnosis creates false memories, despite you having 3 time been specifically directed to the post in which I provided tonnes of scientific evidence?

Perhaps you can come up with a plausible mundane explanation for this case then?

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

Irrelevant. But, in any case, a perfunctory search with google should find you several mundane explanations set forth for it.

What statement?

The one we've been discussing for 4 pages or so, and which you tried to start yet another discussion about in another thread before it was moved here.

I think you will find that it is actually you who has made the unsupported statements here my friend.

"I know you are, but what am I?" - the retort of all true rationalists.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just to give everyone a link that sort of gives the other side of the coin for Cosford:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf1.htm
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf2.htm

 

[H'ethetheth]

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?

Are you serious? Of course he has a plausible explanation.

Just to give everyone a link that sort of gives the other side of the coin for Cosford:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf1.htm
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf2.htm

Very informative. I especially liked the reliable mr Elliot who said "Well, if you put it that way, yes, it could have been a police helicopter."

 

[Rramjet]

You don't know what you're talking about. You're basically saying that in a clinical trial it's ok to have an overrepresentation of one demographic in the control group.

This is a Chi-Square analysis Jocce – not a clinical trial.

The whole purpose of the chi square test in the Bettelle study was to find out statistically if the UNKNOWNS are basically unidentified KNOWNS.

That would be "Battelle" - but yes…

The first test done showed definately that that is not the case.

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

As you can see, the first test demonstrated there to be a significant difference on all characteristics except brightness.

One major reason being that there is an overepresentation of astronomical objects in the KNOWN group.. So duh! Obviously they are different.

So let’s remove the astronomical cases and redo the test:

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

As you can see this second test demonstrated there to now be a significant difference on all characteristics except colour (and that is so close to being significant that for all practical purposes it might as well be).

No, they are different partly because of that overrepresentation.

So once that “overrepresentation” is removed (the second analysis above) – they are still different!

Exactly, four values are balancing on the margin.

You should take a closer look at the above table…

Are we going to interpret those as significant or insignificant?

For all practical purposes there is no difference between a 5% chance of a Type I error and a 6% chance of a Type I error. Contrast that with the Brightness statistic in the first table – that value truly is not significant. See the difference?

Considering the incompleteness of the data…

What “incompleteness of the data”?

… and the inherent inaccuracies in eywitness estimates...etc....

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.

…you know my (and the authors) opinion.

I know yours (and the author’s) spin…

Can not confirm or deny...

No matter how you (and the authors) spin it, there is a significant difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS. Take a look at the above results of analysis again and note the following fact:

” ”…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.)​

There are 240 reports in the category "Insufficient info.". Didn't you notice that?

Meaning there are then 1959 reports in the “sufficient info” category… you must have noticed that.

You do know that the data studied consist of subjective experiences right?

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.

Some of those experiences reported long time after the event in question?

No data on this statement from the authors (that you have inaccurately paraphrased by the way) is presented. Was it one single observation reported “a long time” after the event? Given the author’s propensity to ignore the results of the tests and to generally misrepresent the data wherever possible, I would not be surprised to discover that there was in fact just a single case like that.

I stated:
” 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!”

This is quite funny coming from someone who, in my opinion, is so obviously blinded by his beliefs. You should try to be more openminded in your interpretation of those few pieces of data we have available.

I demonstrably base my assessments on the data and the evidence – not on what others merely tell me to believe.

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.”

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!).

And I was asking a simple enough question. Did you make sure that this is a statistically significant variation?

That is literally a senseless question in the context.

You're confused. How are these two sentences different:

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:

The authors 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)​

See the difference?

So now you agree? Why did you claim just yesterday that what I wrote was misleading (see below)?

I explained that already and you even quoted my explanation!

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

Just to give everyone a link that sort of gives the other side of the coin for Cosford:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf1.htm
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf2.htm

The explanation according to Astrophotographer:

On the evening of 30 March 1993 Russia launched the Cosmos 2238 radio satellite into orbit. The Tsyklon rocket booster 22586U, which propelled the satellite into space then later re-entered the earth’s atmosphere, breaking into two or more pieces as it decayed.

…transit over Ireland at 1.07 am BST moving south-easterly towards Western England at imminent re-entry height. It crossed Devon and Cornwall between 1.10 and 1.15 am… (David Clarke - http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf1.htm)​

The eyewitnesses:

The first sighting took place on 30 March at around 8.30pm in Somerset…

One of the most interesting reports came from a member of the public in Rugely, Staffordshire, who reported a UFO that he estimated as being 200 metres in diameter. He and other family members told me how they had chased the object in their car and got extremely close to it, believing it had landed in a nearby field…

Their official police report (classified Police In Confidence) stated that the UFO passed over the base "at great velocity ... at an altitude of approximately 1000 feet"…

Later on that night, the Meteorological Officer at RAF Shawbury saw the UFO. He described to me how it had moved slowly across the countryside towards the base, at a speed of no more than 30 or 40 mph. He saw the UFO fire a narrow beam of light (like a laser) at the ground and saw the light sweeping backwards and forwards across the field beyond the perimeter fence, as if it were looking for something. He heard an unpleasant low frequency humming sound coming from the craft and said he could feel as well as hear this - rather like standing in front of a bass speaker. (http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)​

Nick Pope stated:

Doug shared with me his own report into the wave of sightings. Like us, he had concluded that the Cosmos 2238 re-entry was the probable explanation for the cluster of sightings at 1.10am. (http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)​

Now, about that meteorologist’s sighting:

He estimated the size of the craft to be midway between a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and a Boeing 747. Then he told me that the light beam had retracted in an unnatural way and that the craft had suddenly accelerated away to the horizon many times faster than a military aircraft. (http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)​

From Astrophotographer’s referenced article by Clarke:

“At the time it did not strike me as being something familiar,” he told me. “However, it’s clear in hindsight that what I saw was not the same object seen at Cosford as it was much later. I never made anything of it, I just reported what I had seen. Nick Pope was very excited about it and made a great deal of the fact that I was an official observer which was true. He assured me that he had checked with all the military sources for aircraft and ruled them out.” And he added: “I believed what I was told at the time, but now I’m convinced that what I saw has been explained. I have to accept that the noise like a humming and the beam of light are very similar to what you would expect of a police helicopter.” (http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/secfilcosf2.htm)​

Two conflicting asessements. So when approached by the debunkers he conveniently “forgot” his original assessment? Not necessarily. The debunkers like to point out how memory can be fallible. So when approached with “Look, there was a police helicopter in the area at that time – it must have been that you saw.” Then sure, he simply forget what he stated in his initial assessment (which was probably the most accurate – while maintaining his reservations “At the time it did not strike me as being something familiar”) in favour of a more prosaic explanation. That is natural.

I will admit however the case is not a particularly strong one. There is just not the level of quality evidence in this case to enable us to draw the conclusion (as I have in many of the other cases I have presented) that it defies mundane explanation.

To that extent I am willing to withdraw this case as firm evidence for my overall thesis.

 

[Rramjet]

Very informative. I especially liked the reliable mr Elliot who said "Well, if you put it that way, yes, it could have been a police helicopter."

It is interesting that you should note that statement from Mr Elliot. It means of course that instead of allowing Elliot to simply relate his observations without bias (as any good scientist would and should have done), it is obvious that Clarke positively pushed an explanation on Elliot!

(Imagine the outcry from the debunker's if a Ufologist had similarly pushed an "explanation" onto a witnness...)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, we weren't finished discussing Delphos before you throw another case against the wall to see if it sticks.

This has been a tactic you have used throughout the thread. Why do you no longer wish to discuss Delphos?

 

[Jocce]

this second test demonstrated there to now be a significant difference on all characteristics except colour (and that is so close to being significant that for all practical purposes it might as well be).

Or, we can say that for all practical purposes, 3 of the others are so close to being insignificant that considering the subjective nature of the data, the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown) the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS.

I said: "Some of those experiences reported long time after the event in question" and you reply:

No data on this statement from the authors (that you have inaccurately paraphrased by the way) is presented.

From page 3 of the report:
"most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years."

How did I inaccurately paraphrase that?

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!).

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

That is literally a senseless question in the context.

So, can't you answer or don't you want to answer?

 

[H'ethetheth]

It is interesting that you should note that statement from Mr Elliot. It means of course that instead of allowing Elliot to simply relate his observations without bias (as any good scientist would and should have done), it is obvious that Clarke positively pushed an explanation on Elliot!

(Imagine the outcry from the debunker's if a Ufologist had similarly pushed an "explanation" onto a witnness...)

Yes, there is that.

On the other hand, mr. Elliot Also said that "Nick Pope was very excited about it and made a great deal of the fact that I was an official observer which was true. He assured me that he had checked with all the military sources for aircraft and ruled them out.”
I find that that sounds just as much as massaging the observation toward a preconceived conclusion. Especially because his process of elimination seems to work as well as yours.

And my actual point is that if mr Elliot can be convinced like that, he can't have been all that confident about his initial observation.

 

[wollery]

Apologies for my absence over the last few weeks, Chinese New Year, a traditional Chinese funeral and a general lack of internet access conspired to keep me from participating in the forum in any meaningful way.

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
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)​

Interesting that you have changed which website you use to reference the radiation. Interesting, because the Mayo Clinic site you previously used gave timing and dosage information, as did the Wikipedia site I referenced, which also supplied information on the duration of the symptoms.

To whit, the victims vomiting was immediate and short term, completely inconsistent with non-lethal dosages of radiation poisoning. The sort of non-lethal dosage that we must assume from their description would result in 24 to 48 hours of vomiting starting an hour or two after exposure, yet no such vomiting was reported. The swelling was not painful and did not present bleeding until 9 days later. Any swelling and skin discolouration should be accompanied by pain, as your own link shows. Go on, read those links, they say that swelling due to radiation burns is painful and your UM link gives tenderness and bleeding as symptoms that accompany swelling (or does it, the details are sparse), yet the victims in the Maracaibo case report no pain until the 9th day when the sores erupted. Furthermore, the hair loss was not on the exposed side. Indeed, unless you completely disregard the testimony of the victims it was on a side that should have experienced less exposure!

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!

That don't fit together in any way that is consistent with radiation poisoning. And all of the victims report the exact same symptoms, despite (it must be assumed) being of different ages, sizes, physical fitnesses, genders and probably having had some range of different exposure levels. In pointing out that different individuals experience different symptoms you actually damage your argument for radiation poisoning.

But for me, the big question is, why did you change from the Mayo Clinic website to the University of Maryland website? The UM website contains far less detail than the Mayo Clinic website. Could it be because the detail on the Mayo Clinic website clearly shows the differences between the victims reported symptoms and those expected from the sort of dosage required to cause most of the symptoms?

To contend otherwise (as you obviously do) is to simply deny the well established scientific evidence!

Actually, contending that radiation poisoning is a plausible explanation for their symptoms as reported is denying "the well established scientific evidence!"

 

[Rramjet]

Or, we can say that for all practical purposes, 3 of the others are so close to being insignificant that considering the subjective nature of the data, the incompleteness of the data (some large protions of properties unknown) the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS.

Let me first define a couple of terms:
The chance of a Type I error is the chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups. For all practical (real world) purposes there is no difference between a 5% chance of a Type I error and a 6% chance of a Type I error.

Regarding the first 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

We can see that the chance of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true is insignificant (like a 0.1% chance!) in all but the Brightness category. That is, there is less than one tenth of one percent chance of being incorrect in concluding there to be a significant difference.

For the Brightness category there is (approximately) a 30% (or more) chance of making a Type I error (considering that p<0.20 cutoff=7.289 and p<0.975 cutoff=0.831). That is, the chances are very substantial that if we conclude there is a significant difference here - we will be committing a type I error.

Now let us see what happens when we remove the astronomical KNOWNS from the 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

Now we can see that Colour, Shape, Duration and Brightness are all hovering at about a 5% chance of making a Type I error. In strictly statistical terms, a 5% chance is considered to be an acceptably small enough chance of committing a Type I error to allow a positive conclusion (in this case that there IS a real world difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS). In practical (or real world) terms, the difference between a 6%, a 5% and a 4% chance of committing a Type I error is negligible.

Taking Colour as an example we can see that the 5% cutoff is 14.067. The test statistic actually turns out to be 13.40. This would relate to about a 6% chance of making a Type I error (if we were to conclude there is a difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS). Now the statistical cutoff is 5%, but in the real world a 6% chance is just as acceptable. As Jacob Cohen (a giant in the world of statistics) points out in his seminal paper [“The Earth is Round (p < .05)”]

“After 4 decades of severe criticism, the ritual of null hypothesis significance testing – mechanical dichotomous decisions around the sacred .05 criterion – still persists” (Cohen, J. (1994) The Earth is Round (p < .05). American Psychologist, Vol. 49, No. 12, 997-1003)​

In the real world, what this all means is that there IS a difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKOWNS. So when you state ” the test can't confirm nor deny that the KNOWNS are primarily UNKNOWNS.” you (and the authors of the report) are simply incorrect. The tests DO confirm a difference. The bottom line is that the Chi_Square analyses confirm that there IS a difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKOWNS. In the first analysis it was all the characteristics except Brightness (which we truly can say on this test there was not a significant difference). The second analysis confirms a practical difference on all the characteristics examined.

No matter how you spin it Jocce, that is the bottom line here. There IS a difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS.

With regard to your “subjectivity of data” statement we must note that the more reliable the report, the more likely it was that it would be categorised as UNKNOWN (and a full 38% of the most reliable reports – those from trained military observers – were categorised as UNKNOWN!).

That is another bottom line here Jocce. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains.

As to your “incompleteness of the data (properties unknown)” statement, we must note that the data were NOT incomplete. First, the analysts had a special INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category into which they placed all such reports as they considered to be of that kind - and then excluded those from further analysis. Second, during the Chi-Square analyses, they also accounted for reports which did not specify the particular characteristic under analysis. There simply was no incomplete data that could have affected the results.

That is yet another bottom line here Jocce. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains.

Regarding your statement about the reports being filled in “a long time after the event”, the report states:

"most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years." (p. 3)​

I have already noted that there is no data provided as to the distribution of the length of time between sighting and report. Given the author’s propensity to misrepresent the data and the results of analysis (if not outright lie about them) I would not be surprised to find out that there was but a single report where the delay was “several years”. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that in their analysis of the reports, that such a delay in reporting would not have been factored into the reliability analysis. And then Jocce, if we exclude the least reliable reports, the percentage of UNKNOWNS becomes greater!

Yet another bottom line here Jocce. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains.

With regard to your question about the statistical significance of the trend in the data (that the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of UNKNOWNS), I noted that such a question was literally senseless. That is, it makes no sense in any statistical or practical terms to ask such a question. It is a dichotomous relationship. You either include the less reliable reports, in which case the percentage of UNKNOWNS drops (to a minimum of 21.5%). Or you exclude the less reliable reports, in which case the percentage of UNKNOWNS increases (to a maximum of 38%).

Still another bottom line here Jocce. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains.

Jocce, in the face of your statements that clearly reflect either a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of the data (and the results of analysis) I will simply present the FACTS. That is another bottom line here Jocce.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” It is interesting that you should note that statement from Mr Elliot. It means of course that instead of allowing Elliot to simply relate his observations without bias (as any good scientist would and should have done), it is obvious that Clarke positively pushed an explanation on Elliot!

(Imagine the outcry from the debunker's if a Ufologist had similarly pushed an "explanation" onto a witness...)”

Yes, there is that.

Yes …there is that.

On the other hand, mr. Elliot Also said that "Nick Pope was very excited about it and made a great deal of the fact that I was an official observer which was true. He assured me that he had checked with all the military sources for aircraft and ruled them out.”
I find that that sounds just as much as massaging the observation toward a preconceived conclusion.

Not nearly to the same extent as Clarke did in positively pushing a specific explanation onto the witness, however I will concede that neither side acted in the manner that they should have in eliciting a witness statement - and that is why I withdraw the case on the grounds that it does not supply enough quality evidence for us to conclude that the sighting defies mundane explanation.

Especially because his process of elimination seems to work as well as yours.

In my opinion such a statement represents a “cheap shot” because to defend against it would mean a lengthy exposition on the process of elimination and how it works in both Pope’s and my own analyses. Again in my opinion, the only conclusion one can then draw in the face of such a statement is that the person who stated it is more intent on “point scoring” than gaining a rational understanding of the factors involved.

And my actual point is that if mr Elliot can be convinced like that, he can't have been all that confident about his initial observation.

“Convinced like that”? Mr Elliot (to you - you similarly used the lower case "m" in your previous post - so it can be no error) was not “convinced” by Pope of anything at all except that his observations may have represented something anomalous. Mr Elliot’s observations were not affected:

He estimated the size of the craft to be midway between a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft and a Boeing 747. Then he told me that the light beam had retracted in an unnatural way and that the craft had suddenly accelerated away to the horizon many times faster than a military aircraft. (http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm)​

Clarke however did “convince” Mr Elliot:

"Well, if you put it that way, yes, it could have been a police helicopter."​

See the difference? On the one hand (Pope) we have a simple relating of the witness observations – on the other (Clarke) we have a definite “pushing” toward a pre-conceived outcome.

 

[Rramjet]

Apologies for my absence over the last few weeks, Chinese New Year, a traditional Chinese funeral and a general lack of internet access conspired to keep me from participating in the forum in any meaningful way.

Welcome back – and my condolences. Are you in Beijing perchance? I will be there in April – perhaps we can meet up? Send me a PM if you’re interested.

Interesting that you have changed which website you use to reference the radiation. Interesting, because the Mayo Clinic site you previously used gave timing and dosage information, as did the Wikipedia site I referenced, which also supplied information on the duration of the symptoms.

To whit, the victims vomiting was immediate and short term, completely inconsistent with non-lethal dosages of radiation poisoning. The sort of non-lethal dosage that we must assume from their description would result in 24 to 48 hours of vomiting starting an hour or two after exposure, yet no such vomiting was reported. The swelling was not painful and did not present bleeding until 9 days later. Any swelling and skin discolouration should be accompanied by pain, as your own link shows. Go on, read those links, they say that swelling due to radiation burns is painful and your UM link gives tenderness and bleeding as symptoms that accompany swelling (or does it, the details are sparse), yet the victims in the Maracaibo case report no pain until the 9th day when the sores erupted. Furthermore, the hair loss was not on the exposed side. Indeed, unless you completely disregard the testimony of the victims it was on a side that should have experienced less exposure!

That don't fit together in any way that is consistent with radiation poisoning. And all of the victims report the exact same symptoms, despite (it must be assumed) being of different ages, sizes, physical fitnesses, genders and probably having had some range of different exposure levels. In pointing out that different individuals experience different symptoms you actually damage your argument for radiation poisoning.

But for me, the big question is, why did you change from the Mayo Clinic website to the University of Maryland website? The UM website contains far less detail than the Mayo Clinic website. Could it be because the detail on the Mayo Clinic website clearly shows the differences between the victims reported symptoms and those expected from the sort of dosage required to cause most of the symptoms?

Actually, contending that radiation poisoning is a plausible explanation for their symptoms as reported is denying "the well established scientific evidence!"

You will note that immediately before presenting the dosage/symptom table the Mayo Clinic states:

” In general, the greater your radiation exposure, the more rapid and more severe your symptoms will be.”​

You will also note that the dosage/symptom table was “adapted” from information that originally came from Merck:

The damaging effects of radiation depend on several factors:
• The amount (dose)
• How rapidly the dose is received
• How much of the body is exposed
• The sensitivity of particular tissues to radiation
(…)
Symptoms depend on whether radiation exposure involves the whole body or is limited to a small portion of the body. At high doses, whole-body exposure causes acute radiation illness, and partial body exposure causes local radiation injury.
(…)
The hematopoietic syndrome is caused by the effects of radiation on the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes—the primary sites of blood cell production (hematopoiesis). Loss of appetite (anorexia), lethargy, nausea, and vomiting may begin 1 to 6 hours after exposure to 1 to 6 Gy of radiation. These symptoms resolve within 24 to 36 hours after exposure, and people feel well for a week or more. During this symptom-free period…
(…)
The gastrointestinal syndrome is due to the effects of radiation on the cells lining the digestive tract. Severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may begin in less than 1 hour after exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation. The symptoms may lead to severe dehydration, but they resolve within 2 days. During the next 4 or 5 days (latent stage), people feel well, but the cells lining the digestive tract, which normally act as a protective barrier, die and are shed.
(…)
Local Radiation Injury: Radiation therapy for cancer is one of the most common causes of local radiation injuries. Other causes produce similar symptoms. Symptoms depend on the amount of radiation and the area of the body treated.
Nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite may occur during or shortly after irradiation of the brain or abdomen. Large amounts of radiation to a limited area of the body often damage the skin over that area. Skin changes include hair loss, redness, peeling, sores, and, possibly eventual thinning of the skin and dilated blood vessels just beneath the skin's surface (spider veins).
(…)
The early symptoms of acute radiation illness–nausea, vomiting, and tremors–can also be caused by anxiety. (http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec24/ch292/ch292a.html)​

So we find that the victim’s symptoms:

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Virulent sores
Loss of hair

And the course of those symptoms – including a symptom free period are entirely consistent with radiation poisoning. No matter how you spin it wollery, that fact will always remain. All you really have to do is go to the primary and scientific sources for your information (and I would avoid Wikipedia in that respect if I was you ).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Especially because his process of elimination seems to work as well as yours.

In my opinion such a statement represents a “cheap shot” because to defend against it would mean a lengthy exposition on the process of elimination and how it works in both Pope’s and my own analyses. Again in my opinion, the only conclusion one can then draw in the face of such a statement is that the person who stated it is more intent on “point scoring” than gaining a rational understanding of the factors involved.

No, you are incorrect. It means that you have ducked and dodged this question since your brought up a process of elimination. It has been shown how much you've mangled your version of a process of elimination in this thread. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle? How about Delphos? You must have seen the writing on the wall with that one since you are now ducking and dodging that one.

Your version of a process of elimination has been proven by you to be a failure. What are you left with?