UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

All that there is in favour of a metal acorn is some unverified anecdotes told years after the event, some details of which have been shown to be inaccurate.

Some data appears to be innacurate and some does not. Virtually all of it is unverifiable, but some things are more reasonable to believe than others. The main point here is that we seem to have a hard nosed skeptic making a conclusive statement based only on circumstantial evedence and hearsay ... pseudoskepticism perhaps?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Some data appears to be innacurate and some does not. Virtually all of it is unverifiable, but some things are more reasonable to believe than others. The main point here is that we seem to have a hard nosed skeptic making a conclusive statement based only on circumstantial evedence and hearsay ... pseudoskepticism perhaps?

j.r.

LOL! I think you have that backwards!

In a pseudoscientific manner, Rramjet started with his conclusion that something had fallen in Kecksburg and fought tooth and nail to try to hang onto the delusion. His evidence was witness statements from years later from people some of whom hadn't been there.

Contrast that with Astrophotographer who did actual research into the contemporary accounts where nothing was found.

All of the inaccurate data that you've notice was dredged up by Rramjet who is incapable of admitting when he is mistaken and has been taken for a ride by other pseudoscientists.

 

[ufology]

LOL! I think you have that backwards!

Uh ... no I don't ... here's the quote:

"There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away."

The above is drawing a definitive conclusion. Clearly that cannot be done in this case. No definitive conclusion can be drawn. There are people who say there was an object and people say there wasn't. It's all hearsay. If you draw a definitive conclusion based on hearsay, you are practising pseudoskepticism. It's pretty clear-cut. Just admit it and restate it. It shouldn't be that hard. Or are you going to dig yourself in deeper?

j.r.

 

[TjW]

Some data appears to be innacurate and some does not. Virtually all of it is unverifiable, but some things are more reasonable to believe than others.

j.r.

So what time is it when the clock strikes thirteen?

 

[Stray Cat]

Clearly that cannot be done in this case. No definitive conclusion can be drawn.

It can.

There are people who say there was an object and people say there wasn't. It's all hearsay.

Ironic that suddenly hearsay is baaaad!
What happened to being able to distinguish good quality anecdote from poor quality anecdote?
However, AstroP has provided more than hearsay, he's provided testable information to show how the object seen (fireball) wasn't heading towards Kecksburg.

If you draw a definitive conclusion based on hearsay, you are practising pseudoskepticism. It's pretty clear-cut. Just admit it and restate it. It shouldn't be that hard. Or are you going to dig yourself in deeper?

Read some of Astrophotographers information, it's not hearsay.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh ... no I don't ... here's the quote:

"There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away."

LOL. No, here's the quote:

that of the "acorn" being taken away.

The above is drawing a definitive conclusion. Clearly that cannot be done in this case. No definitive conclusion can be drawn. There are people who say there was an object and people say there wasn't. It's all hearsay. If you draw a definitive conclusion based on hearsay, you are practising pseudoskepticism. It's pretty clear-cut. Just admit it and restate it. It shouldn't be that hard. Or are you going to dig yourself in deeper?

j.r.

Indeed, he does draw a definitive conclusion.

You'll need to show me some extraordinary evidence if you're going to claim that a large metal acorn was taken away on a flatbed military truck. You have the burden of proof. The pseudoscientist, despite his handwaving, finally gave up, knowing he had nothing. Can you do any better?

 

[Vortigern99]

"There was [no unicorn] there so there was [no unicorn horn] to take away."

The above is drawing a definitive conclusion. Clearly that cannot be done in this case. No definitive conclusion can be drawn. There are people who say there was [a unicorn] and people say there wasn't. It's all hearsay. If you draw a definitive conclusion based on hearsay, you are practising pseudoskepticism. It's pretty clear-cut. Just admit it and restate it. It shouldn't be that hard. Or are you going to dig yourself in deeper?

Here we have it. We must consider all claims to be equally valid and we must be prepared to prove a negative. You tell us, Ufology!!!! Put us in our unicorn-disbelieving places.

 

[ufology]

It can.

Ironic that suddenly hearsay is baaaad!
What happened to being able to distinguish good quality anecdote from poor quality anecdote?

However, Astro has provided more than hearsay, he's provided testable information to show how the object seen (fireball) wasn't heading towards Kecksburg.

Read some of Astrophotographers information, it's not hearsay.

Here is the link to the quote we are dealing with as a Robo's final conclusion.

No, you aren't allowed to sneak in false information. There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away.
NOW, this case has run its course, Astrophotographer having done some stellar research and with nothing more to see here.

Back to Delphos. Did you deliberately and overtly hide the information that indicated the Johnson boy had attempted other hoaxes or was it your substandard research skills that caused you to not know about them?

So let's not try to switch topics. It's reasonable to believe that a fireball was seen ( but there is no "proof" ).

The fireball, if it existed, may or may not have been an entirely separate phenomenon from the Kecksburg artifact. It is reasonable to believe there was a fireball, but we can't say with certainty that the fireball is what the witnesses in Kecksburg saw or that the Kecksburg artifact and the fireball were one in the same. All evidence, if we are to believe it, suggests that if there was a fireball, it probably wasn't the Kecksburg artifact.

However to make the leap in logic that because there was a fireball that there was no artifact is faulty reasoning. It is reasonable to suggest that there is a probability that the fireball could have been the stimulus for the Kecksburg sighting, but to conclude that as a certainty is pseudoskeptical.

Now, because I'm not trying to prove there was an artifact, I don't have to offer any proof there was. I only contend that we don't have enough reliable data do draw any conclusion ... or for that matter even draw any conclusion that is beyond any reasonable doubt.

As for the topic of anecdotal evidence, I've made my position clear on that. I'm not saying that it isn't useful or shouldn't be allowed for consideration ... or even the sake of interest. It's the skeptics who are doing that. We have no pieces of that meteor ( or whatever it was ) that can be conclusively linked to all the witnesses, and we have no pieces or the Kecksburg object ( if there was one ), that can be conclusively linked to all the witnesses.

So again ... I offer all those who are still defending the idea that their is conclusive evidence that there was no object, to restate or concur with waht has just been said. And as a final note on "proving the negative", I'm not the one who has to do it, and if skeptics know it isn't possible, then then shouldn't be making statements they know they can't prove.

j.r.

 

[Vortigern99]

You clearly misunderstand, or entirely fail to grasp, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Also that it is impossible to prove a negative. Also that when no tangible, unambiguous evidence has been forthcoming in 60+ years of investigation, it's rational to assert that no such thing exists as 1) unicorns, 2) leprechauns or 3) alien spacecraft (or whatever you think UFOs are).

 

[ufology]

You clearly misunderstand, or entirely fail to grasp, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Also that it is impossible to prove a negative. Also that when no tangible, unambiguous evidence has been forthcoming in 60+ years of investigation, it's rational to assert that no such thing exists as 1) unicorns, 2) leprechauns or 3) alien spacecraft (or whatever you think UFOs are).

Uh ... "you" who? Me?

If so, you clearly don't understand I'm not making a claim that there was an artifact, I'm making a claim that drawing the conclusion that there wasn't is pseudoskeptical.

j.r.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yes, you. It is perfectly rational to assert that something does not exist in the face of a complete death of evidence.

Otherwise we might as well admit that unicorns just might exist, and leprechauns might be watching me as I type this.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here is the link to the quote we are dealing with as a Robo's final conclusion.

Here is Rramjet's final conclusion:

that of the "acorn" being taken away.

I notice that you didn't question that positive assertion of his. Anyway, you'll need to get Rramjet to provide better evidence than he has on this. I don't think you will since he's apparently given up on it even.

So let's not try to switch topics. It's reasonable to believe that a fireball was seen ( but there is no "proof" ).

The fireball, if it existed, may or may not have been an entirely separate phenomenon from the Kecksburg artifact. It is reasonable to believe there was a fireball, but we can't say with certainty that the fireball is what the witnesses in Kecksburg saw or that the Kecksburg artifact and the fireball were one in the same. All evidence, if we are to believe it, suggests that if there was a fireball, it probably wasn't the Kecksburg artifact.

Now that you have asserted that there is a Kecksburg artifact, can you provide evidence for it? Even Rramjet gave up, realizing the futility when all the evidence was against him.

However to make the leap in logic that because there was a fireball that there was no artifact is faulty reasoning. It is reasonable to suggest that there is a probability that the fireball could have been the stimulus for the Kecksburg sighting, but to conclude that as a certainty is pseudoskeptical.

Great! Who are you arguing with?

Now, because I'm not trying to prove there was an artifact, I don't have to offer any proof there was. I only contend that we don't have enough reliable data do draw any conclusion ... or for that matter even draw any conclusion that is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Actually, see above where you made the positive assertion that there was a Kecksburg artifact. That must be why you didn't chastise Rramjet for drawing the same erroneous conclusion, despite the evidence.

As for the topic of anecdotal evidence, I've made my position clear on that. I'm not saying that it isn't useful or shouldn't be allowed for consideration ... or even the sake of interest. It's the skeptics who are doing that. We have no pieces of that meteor ( or whatever it was ) that can be conclusively linked to all the witnesses, and we have no pieces or the Kecksburg object ( if there was one ), that can be conclusively linked to all the witnesses.

Yes, your position is clear on anecdotal evidence.

So again ... I offer all those who are still defending the idea that their is conclusive evidence that there was no object, to restate or concur with waht has just been said. And as a final note on "proving the negative", I'm not the one who has to do it, and if skeptics know it isn't possible, then then shouldn't be making statements they know they can't prove.

j.r.

The null hypothesis is that there was no object, based on the total smackdown courtesy of Astrophotographer. Until you or Rramjet can provide evidence of an object, there is no reason to think there ever was one.

 

[ufology]

The null hypothesis is that there was no object, based on the total smackdown courtesy of Astrophotographer. Until you or Rramjet can provide evidence of an object, there is no reason to think there ever was one.

I nearly concur with the above, which is our final conclusion. However just to cover a point on context. When I mentioned the Kecksburg artifact, the context was for illustrative purposes to differentiate what we were dealing with. I think you figured that out later. The post needs to be considered in its entirety or else it's out of context.

As for the "null hypothesis", I'm willing to accept that there is no reason to "believe" with any certainty that there was an artifact. If we want to now add the "null hypothesis" into the mix, my point is that the "null hypothesis" is not something that can be proven, therefore no conclusion can be made, therefore the conclusion that there was no artifact is pseudoskeptical.

" ... null hypothesis can never be proven. Your data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it ... " Wikipedia


j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I nearly concur with the above, which is our final conclusion. However just to cover a point on context. When I mentioned the Kecksburg artifact, the context was for illustrative purposes to differentiate what we were dealing with. I think you figured that out later. The post needs to be considered in its entirety or else it's out of context.

Not exactly. In context, it was still saying the same thing. I didn't snip any of your post. You were positing an artifact. I think you realized it a little too late to edit it since I'd already quoted it.

However...

As for the "null hypothesis", I'm willing to accept that there is no reason to "believe" with any certainty that there was an artifact. If we want to now add the "null hypothesis" into the mix, my point is that the "null hypothesis" is not something that can be proven, therefore no conclusion can be made, therefore the conclusion that there was no artifact is pseudoskeptical.

" ... null hypothesis can never be proven. Your data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it ... " Wikipedia


j.r.

If this is us agreeing, I can live with that.

 

[ufology]

Not exactly. In context, it was still saying the same thing. I didn't snip any of your post. You were positing an artifact. I think you realized it a little too late to edit it since I'd already quoted it.

However...

If this is us agreeing, I can live with that.

Yes I know you didn't actually snip my post, just divided it up and commented before it became clear that I was using the word artifact in an illustrative sense. I will conceed that perhaps I might have put "( illustarative )" in there to alert the reader. But you know how it is, we triage our individual words to facilitate the process and sometimes assume incorrectly that the reader will catch it.

In the end ... I think we agree that Kecksburg might be interesting for those who enjoy ufolore, but there are far to many ambiguities to believe anything one way or another ... other than the meteor sighting itself, which was probably pretty cool.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In the end ... I think we agree that Kecksburg might be interesting for those who enjoy ufolore, but there are far to many ambiguities to believe anything one way or another ... other than the meteor sighting itself, which was probably pretty cool.

j.r.

Then we don't agree. There aren't far too many ambiguities to believe anything one way or another. Rramjet's years after the fact anecdotes compared to the contemporary accounts don't provide enough ambiguity to upset the null hypothesis.

 

[Rramjet]

So, what you are saying is that it is possible for scientists to fail to conduct an error analysis, and also possible for it to pass peer-review without being questioned. I've also previously shown that peer-review journals will publish data with large errors.

That's all I've ever been saying, and something you denied vigorously, accusing me of maligning the character of those scientists for even daring to suggest the possibility.

I have two simple questions.

1. Is it possible for a scientist to produce a report without an appropriate error analysis? Yes or no.

2. Is it plausible for a scientist to produce a report without an appropriate error analysis? Yes or no.

I am not sure why you continue to ignore my statements that speak directly the questions you ask.

I have stated that while it is possible for a scientist to produce a report without error analysis - indeed, it seems C&K got one published no less- nevertheless it is highly unusual and I would suggest no paper today would be published without one.

While it is therefore possible, it is simply not plausible – and C&K’s ability to publish their paper simply beggars belief – the reviewers must have been asleep at the wheel.

It is therefore not plausible to expect highly trained analysts, such as the White Sands specialists and mathematicians, working as they did on data from top secret missile and rocket tests, a job they were trained specifically in, to produce any report that would not contain an assessment of error margins. The success of the US rocket program at that time would have depended on their ability to do so!

(…and for you to contend that in producing any report those analysts would not have conducted a thorough and proper analysis IS maligning them)

 

[Rramjet]

It becomes necessary to provide a strong defence of myself here in the face of persistent lies and misrepresentation being (once again) posted concerning my position. For example:

Here is Rramjet's final conclusion:

that of the "acorn" being taken away.

I notice that you didn't question that positive assertion of his. Anyway, you'll need to get Rramjet to provide better evidence than he has on this. I don't think you will since he's apparently given up on it even.

Of course my actual statement in that regard was:

…it is just that two aspects of that cannot be directly supported by evidence - that of a large military presence (we know there was at least a small one) and that of the "acorn" being taken away.

It beggars belief that people such as RoboT could think that such tactics are legitimate in a civil and rational debate - but it does nevertheless provide us a unique insight into the mindset of what it takes to be a JREF member. RoboT has carried on this type of tactic since I began posting in the forum – but not once has any other JREF member (apart from myself and Egg) ever pulled him up on his uncivil lies and misrepresentations (even after appeals to the moderators). In such omission JREF thereby provides tacit approval for his tactics (and of course he is not the only one indulging in them).

Evidence of his lies and misrepresentations are everywhere throughout his posts. For example in the following:

Actually, see above where you made the positive assertion that there was a Kecksburg artifact. That must be why you didn't chastise Rramjet for drawing the same erroneous conclusion, despite the evidence.

Yet RoboT does not seem to be phased even when his lies and misrepresentations are called out for what they are. He just carries on regardless – labelling me a liar and a hypocrite instead!

I have tried a reasonable, balanced approach on the Kecksburg incident:

I agree with ufology that Kecksburg is not a case that one would die in a ditch defending. Something unusual occurred, but whether anything was found and carted away, as I stated before, I am willing to reserve judgement. One can however argue the details if one side or other puts forward a contention that is not supported by the evidence - and that is precisely what has been happenning over the last few pages. The case definitely has some unusual aspects to it and neither side can really lay claim to have explained all the anaomalies. Unlike many other cases, I doubt that this one will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties now. The eyewitnesses are adamant about what they saw - it is just that two aspects of that cannot be directly supported by evidence - that of a large military presence (we know there was at least a small one) and that of the "acorn" being taken away. As for the rest, well there can be no denying the cordons, the roadblocks, the search, the sightseers, the reporters, the media and extensive official interest. One only has to look at the Blue Book files to see that military people were calling in from all over for information and indeed, even the Pentagon made a call. Strange then that no-one outside Blue Book made a note about the case on a file anywhere in official military circles... NASA for example has all sorts of "lesser" meteor and fireball incidents listed, but one of the best known and most controversial - nada (and they fought a protracted, years long, battle in the courts to avoid even releasing just that fact)... it kind of beggars belief.

But instead of addressing the issues I raise therein, I am met with lies and misrepresentations and unfounded assertion:

No, you aren't allowed to sneak in false information. There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away.

..and a swift change of topic containing more lies and misrepresentations:

Back to Delphos. Did you deliberately and overtly hide the information that indicated the Johnson boy had attempted other hoaxes or was it your substandard research skills that caused you to not know about them?

Of course I have addressed this issue on numerous occasions, pointing out precisely what I did say and how RoboT’s statements in that regard are completely misrepresentative and bald-faced lies – but he is not phased by that – he merely waits until my statements on the matter recede from view – only to post his scurrilous attacks all over again.

I have tried to ignore his posts for as long as I can, but there comes a point where one simply has to stand up and defend oneself. This is that point.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It becomes necessary to provide a strong defence of myself here in the face of persistent lies and misrepresentation being (once again) posted concerning my position. For example:



Of course my actual statement in that regard was:


It beggars belief that people such as RoboT could think that such tactics are legitimate in a civil and rational debate - but it does nevertheless provide us a unique insight into the mindset of what it takes to be a JREF member. RoboT has carried on this type of tactic since I began posting in the forum – but not once has any other JREF member (apart from myself and Egg) ever pulled him up on his uncivil lies and misrepresentations (even after appeals to the moderators). In such omission JREF thereby provides tacit approval for his tactics (and of course he is not the only one indulging in them).

Evidence of his lies and misrepresentations are everywhere throughout his posts. For example in the following:

Yet RoboT does not seem to be phased even when his lies and misrepresentations are called out for what they are. He just carries on regardless – labelling me a liar and a hypocrite instead!

I have tried a reasonable, balanced approach on the Kecksburg incident:


But instead of addressing the issues I raise therein, I am met with lies and misrepresentations and unfounded assertion:

You're right. I was wrong. I misread what you typed. Mea culpa and I apologize.

..and a swift change of topic containing more lies and misrepresentations:

Of course I have addressed this issue on numerous occasions, pointing out precisely what I did say and how RoboT’s statements in that regard are completely misrepresentative and bald-faced lies – but he is not phased by that – he merely waits until my statements on the matter recede from view – only to post his scurrilous attacks all over again.

I have tried to ignore his posts for as long as I can, but there comes a point where one simply has to stand up and defend oneself. This is that point.

Well, no. That one has not been answered. If you did, point out the post and I'll be happy to apologize for that too. Until you answer whether it was your shoddy research skills that caused you to miss his other hoaxing attempts or deliberate and dishonest omission to support your case, you lie when you say that you've answered it.

The only reason you answered me this time is because it's the first time I've been wrong. You don't answer the ones where you are. Which is all the others.

So, back to Delphos. Was it deliberate dishonesty or substandard research?

 

[ufology]

Then we don't agree. There aren't far too many ambiguities to believe anything one way or another. Rramjet's years after the fact anecdotes compared to the contemporary accounts don't provide enough ambiguity to upset the null hypothesis.

Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as stating with certainty, as though it were a proven fact that nothing was there.

Additionally, it should be noted that the null hypothesis is used in statistical evaluation, including the same medical case studies I pointed to in earlier posts, which the skeptics here have complained as being invalid because medical case studies and UFOs are a different kettle of fish.

But even if we allow this null hypothesis, if we are to be all skeptically picky ( as at least one skeptical poster thinks we should be ), then strictly speaking, the use of a null hypothesis in a single event case study can yeild no meaningful data. It would be like testing the fairness of a coin toss using only one coin toss.

So in addition to drawing conclusions as though they were proof, and trying to escape the mistake by introducing new conditions, ( the null hypothesis), we are now seeing that the use of a null hypothesis is also innapropriate, not because this is a different kettle of fish, but because it's of no use in a single incident evaluation.

Keep digging ... I offered a graceful way out. But the hole is getting deeper all the time.

j.r.