UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Why is that obviously not a proper null hypothesis?

And why are hoaxes, delusions, and such other mundane explanations, actually not mundane explanations?

Your logic may be obvious to you, but it's not so to everyone else.

I think you have to send in 15 Mars Bar wrappers to get the secret decoder ring.

 

[Rramjet]

Why is that obviously not a proper null hypothesis?

And why are hoaxes, delusions, and such other mundane explanations, actually not mundane explanations?

Your logic may be obvious to you, but it's not so to everyone else.

Oh yes, you are right of course (trying to do too many things at once LOL) - hoaxes and delusions etc may of course be considered to be mundane explanations -there is a difference between those explanations and “natural object/phenomenological” explanations – but I don’t have time to go into that just now.

It is not a null hypothesis because the null hypothesis is directionless - it proposes no difference, no effect, or no specific outcome.

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." postulates a specific explanation for UFO sightings. It has a favoured direction.

The null hypothesis would be something along the lines of what I stated above:

If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports.

 

[Jocce]

The cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.

...he stated clearly and unambigously as if it was automagically true then.

Fortenberry/Nash DC-4 UFO sighting (14 Jul 1953)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-177)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-200)

(posted by ufology)

The debunkers have put no argument against this case except to contend that because it is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken, then they are mistaken in this (and every) case.

Of course that is illogical nonsense.

I asked you before how you can be certain that the characteristics of these objects (size, speed, color etc.) is a correct representation of reality. Never got an answer. You choose to believe that these guys give a factually correct description which is far from certain.

Finally, in the face of implications that no such exist, I have proposed a testable null hypothesis:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then we would expect there to be no difference on defined characteristics (such as shape, size, speed, colour, etc) between “known” (explained) reports and “unknown” (unexplained) reports.

We discussed a report looking into that just a few months ago. The conclusion of the report was that there is no significant difference.The same report showed that there is equal proportions of unidentified objects in "good" and "bad" reports.

Here the UFO debunkers dismiss it out of hand. They are simply afraid of scientific, falsifiable null hypotheses – and judging from the posts in this thread following my initial posting of that hypothesis – have merely attempted to deny and ridicule that hypothesis away (wish it into a cornfield I believe is the popular debunker saying)…

Dismiss it out of hand? You don't think anyone notice that this is not true

Of course there is one poster who has an alleged null hypothesis

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."

Which of course is not a null hypothesis at all – and also the existence of hoaxes and delusions, etc immediately falsifies it.

So hoaxes and delusions are "alien" to you. That surely explains why you believe that certain reports "defy mundane explanations"

But of course the poster of this hypothesis is attempting to get at the ETH. However, considering that we do not have proof of the ETH, in that regard, the absence of proof for the ETH does not mean the above hypothesis is true either.

Mind reading might win you a million bucks.

 

[AdMan]

It is not a null hypothesis because the null hypothesis is directionless - it proposes no difference, no effect, or no specific outcome.

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." postulates a specific explanation for UFO sightings. It has a favoured direction.

The null hypothesis would be that there is no explanation for UFO reports.

This isn't right.

Sorry if it has been discussed earlier, but a null hypothesis would not be that there is no explanation for UFO reports. A null hypothesis would present a default position, exactly like "All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."

"There is no explanation" is not an acceptable default position at all.

Anyone who understands what a null hypothesis is should be able to understand this.

 

[Rramjet]

This isn't right.

Sorry if it has been discussed earlier, but a null hypothesis would not be that there is no explanation for UFO reports. A null hypothesis would present a default position, exactly like "All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."

"There is no explanation" is not an acceptable default position at all.

Right again. I edited my post above to reflect that - but of course you got in first. LOL.

But of course the "default" position is not necesarily as you state it either,

Here is as good an explanation as any (http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis)

 

[Pixel42]

Oh, so you can explain your Jesus sighting in that way.

As my pattern seeking brain seeing a pattern it's predisposed to see that isn't actually there, yes.

Very well, perhaps you can then explain the Fortenberry/Nash sighting in that way

Well let's see. What is it that an aircraft pilot is predisposed to see when he looks out of his cockpit window? Other solid aircraft of a similar size and shape to his own, at similar distances from the ground, I would say. This could cause him to misinterpret:

1. Insubstantial objects as solid objects

2. Small, close objects as aircraft-sized objects further away

3. Large, distant objects as aircraft-sized objects closer

4. Biological and other natural objects as technological objects

There's also the fact that he's seeing a 3 dimensional object moving in 3 dimensional space from a single line of sight, i.e. in two dimensions, which can cause him to misinterpret both the shape and the maneuvering capability of the object.

Then there's the fact that he only had a few seconds to try to determine what it was he was looking at.

I have no idea what it is that these pilots actually saw, there is simply no way of knowing. If there was more data - if the objects had been photographed or registered on the pilot's or ground radar, for example - it might be possible to come up with one or two possibilities. As it is, we don't even have enough information to make an intelligent guess. We certainly don't have enough information to conclude that it was extraterrestrial.

 

[Pixel42]

Now here's an interesting potential source of UFO sightings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/aug/02/missing-inflatable-island-secret-garden

A good example of a mundane explanation for a UFO sighting that would never occur to anyone who didn't already know about it.

 

[wollery]

Oh yes, you are right of course (trying to do too many things at once LOL) - hoaxes and delusions etc may of course be considered to be mundane explanations -there is a difference between those explanations and “natural object/phenomenological” explanations – but I don’t have time to go into that just now.

It is not a null hypothesis because the null hypothesis is directionless - it proposes no difference, no effect, or no specific outcome.

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." postulates a specific explanation for UFO sightings. It has a favoured direction.

The null hypothesis would be something along the lines of what I stated above:

If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports.

Um, no. A null hypothesis is an hypothesis. An hypothesis is a basic idea of the underlying cause. What you have proposed is a test of the underlying cause.

So the null hypothesis in your supposed version is actually "All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." Expecting to see no difference in distribution of characteristics between identified and unidentified cases is a test of that null hypothesis.

Maybe you should go and read the explanation you linked to, because you offer it as a good example, despite the fact that you aren't following it at all. In that example the idea is that "the loss of my socks is due to alien burglary. In this instance the null hypothesis is given as "the loss of my socks is not due to alien burglary". It then goes on to explain how one might statistically test the null hypothesis.

That's what we're proposing. The hypothesis is "Not all UFO sightings are mundane in origin". The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are mundane in origin". You have then proposed a method to statistically test that null hypothesis.

 

[Marduk]

We have no direct evidence for ET.
.

exactly

the ETH becomes a plausible explanatory hypothesis.
.

without any evidence at all ?

talking to you always reminds me of the conversation between Captain Kirk and Nomad,

 

[RoboTimbo]

In light of the recent uncivil obfuscations, it once again becomes necessary to reiterate a few things to clarify my position:

Maybe it would be better if you didn't engage in uncivil obfuscations then.

The cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.

But they don't. That is simply your belief because you are a pseudoscientist engaged in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy.

Interestingly the debunkers conclude therefore that can only mean ET.

Where in the falsifiable null hypothesis:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

does ET enter into it? Why do you make such false statements?

But I must state that is an unwarranted conclusion. We have no direct evidence for ET.

We have no evidence of ET, period.

However, it must be noted that in the absence of plausible mundane explanations and considering the fact that science does not preclude ET visitation and in consideration of the evidence (ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated being) then the ETH becomes a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

You continue to lie when you repeat your unfounded assertion. The process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations, as you well know. There are no pretend nuts and bolts craft, no intellingent control that is attributable to ET, and no associated beings. If you have extraordinary evidence for those things, you should be presenting that instead of your stories.

Once again however it must be reiterated that this does not mean the ETH is the explanation – looks can be deceiving after all – merely a plausible alternative.

You've mistaken the word "plausible" for the word "possible" again. Only a pseudoscientist would do that.

Now the UFO debunkers have contended there is no film evidence.

I have presented the following case:

Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)
Blue Book
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?pagecode=MAXW-PBB11-411)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-419)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-437)
FBI
(http://www.nicap.org/utah5.htm)
Condon
(http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm)
Swords
(http://www.nicap.org/utah8.htm)

Against which the UFO debunkers have launched an (in my opinion) unwarranted attack the credibility of the Navy and Air Force experts in their analyses of the film.

But your opinion means nothing. The null hypothesis says:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

How does the film falsify that?

They also cite the Robertson Panel who also speculated about the validity of the analysis – but of course they never analysed the film themselves – merely provided some speculative opinion. Most rational people would defer to the scientific analysis of experts in their own field – but of course the debunkers do not do this – instead they prefer speculative opinion over science in this case (even while demanding the opposite of UFO proponents).

Well, no. It's the pseudoscientific creduloids who propose "alien" with their psuedoscientific speculative opinions.

Another caase under discussion is the

Fortenberry/Nash DC-4 UFO sighting (14 Jul 1953)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-177)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-200)

(posted by ufology)

The debunkers have put no argument against this case except to contend that because it is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken, then they are mistaken in this (and every) case.

Well, no. The null hypothesis in that case is:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

The "debunkers" don't propose concrete explanations, as you seem to want them to. No need when you have a falsifiable null hypothesis. So what are you proposing?

Of course that is illogical nonsense.

And we've tried to advise you not to screech your illogical nonsense but you insist on continuing.

Finally, in the face of implications that no such exist, I have proposed a testable null hypothesis:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then we would expect there to be no difference on defined characteristics (such as shape, size, speed, colour, etc) between “known” (explained) reports and “unknown” (unexplained) reports.

Here the UFO debunkers dismiss it out of hand. They are simply afraid of scientific, falsifiable null hypotheses – and judging from the posts in this thread following my initial posting of that hypothesis – have merely attempted to deny and ridicule that hypothesis away (wish it into a cornfield I believe is the popular debunker saying)…

Which is an idiotic pseudoscientific one. Are you really so confused about it as this? Which of the many, many explanations do you not understand?

Of course there is one poster who has an alleged null hypothesis

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."

Which of course is not a null hypothesis at all – and also the existence of hoaxes and delusions, etc immediately falsifies it.

Hoaxes and delusions are mundane explanations. How do they fit into your null hypothesis? Oh yeah, they don't. LOL.

But of course the poster of this hypothesis is attempting to get at the ETH. However, considering that we do not have proof of the ETH, in that regard, the absence of proof for the ETH does not mean the above hypothesis is true either.

Where in the null hypothesis:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

is ET?

No, Rramjet. Screech you ever so loudly, that is the falsifiable null hypothesis that we will use. It is easily falsified by only just one confirmed ET. Why would you not want to do that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh yes, you are right of course (trying to do too many things at once LOL) - hoaxes and delusions etc may of course be considered to be mundane explanations -there is a difference between those explanations and “natural object/phenomenological” explanations – but I don’t have time to go into that just now.

LOL! Translation: I can't think of anything on the fly to cover my foolish words. It will take some time to make up something pseudosciencey.

It is not a null hypothesis because the null hypothesis is directionless - it proposes no difference, no effect, or no specific outcome.

It makes no assumptions. Simple and straightforward with no assumptions and easily falsifiable with only just one confirmed ET. Why would you not want to do that?

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations." postulates a specific explanation for UFO sightings. It has a favoured direction.

Yes, one that makes no assumptions. The "direction" you refer to is otherwise referred to as "the known". LOL.

The null hypothesis would be something along the lines of what I stated above:

If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports.

No, that is an idiotic pseudoscientific hypothesis which makes assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect. Why would you want to propose an idiotic pseuduscientific one?

No, Rramjet. The one we will stick with is:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh yes, you are right of course (trying to do too many things at once LOL) - hoaxes and delusions etc may of course be considered to be mundane explanations -there is a difference between those explanations and “natural object/phenomenological” explanations – but I don’t have time to go into that just now.

LOL! Translation: I can't think of anything on the fly to cover my foolish words. It will take some time to make up something pseudosciencey.

I'd swear I keep hearing a disembodied voice saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" whenever I read this thread.

 

[tomi71]

I think this isn´t this complicated at all. The sceptical movement can show the mundane explanations to each case and then the cases can be closed. I wonder why they don´t do it, since they seem to think that there is a mundane explanation to cases presented here.

Why in the world they want to argue this as this shouldn´t be difficult. Or maybe it´s difficult - and if it is, I wonder why it is.

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal. If not where are the explanations?

 

[Stray Cat]

Tomi, you present a classic "argument from ignorance"

Of course it's difficult to identify something someone told us they saw that they couldn't identify (especially when it's been written up inaccurately and sometimes dishonestly by UFOlogists).

All we can do is provide possibilities as to what it may have been.

 

[carlitos]

Which of course is not a null hypothesis at all – and also the existence of hoaxes and delusions, etc immediately falsifies it.

Sadly, hoaxes and delusions are quite mundane. Known to exist. From the latin, mund = world / earth.

I think this isn´t this complicated at all. The sceptical movement can show the mundane explanations to each case and then the cases can be closed. I wonder why they don´t do it, since they seem to think that there is a mundane explanation to cases presented here.

Why in the world they want to argue this as this shouldn´t be difficult. Or maybe it´s difficult - and if it is, I wonder why it is.

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal. If not where are the explanations?

You missed the first 240 pages of this thread then?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think this isn´t this complicated at all. The sceptical movement can show the mundane explanations to each case and then the cases can be closed. I wonder why they don´t do it, since they seem to think that there is a mundane explanation to cases presented here.

Why in the world they want to argue this as this shouldn´t be difficult. Or maybe it´s difficult - and if it is, I wonder why it is.

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal. If not where are the explanations?

Have you read any of the posts?

 

[AdMan]

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal.

Unexplained does not mean unexplainable.

 

[tomi71]

I have read all the pages (almost) and this is the reason I wrote about the sceptics movement´s inability to explain the cases. I am sure that science can´t explain the either.

If you can, please step forward and go. Don´t ask me what I have or have not read. It´s not about me. This is about UFO-cases.

Where are the explanations? This should be easy for you, since you claim that the cases have a mundane explanation.

Please. I am not stopping you. Go ahead. Or maybe you can´t and then must admit that you don´t have explanations.

If you do not have explanations it means that you don´t find any mundane explanations.

If you however find mundane explanations I wonder why the silence about them.

Or maybe you are presenting a case of mundanity, which we haven´t heard before which is scientific and which you don´t know if it exists. I wonder if that is mundane at all.

Go ahead. Don´t ask me, just present your answers if you have any. If not you must admit that the cases don´t have mundane explanations.

Even if some would have what about the rest?

Keep the ad hominem out of this also. I am not replying to anything with it.

 

[Jocce]

I think this isn´t this complicated at all. The sceptical movement can show the mundane explanations to each case and then the cases can be closed. I wonder why they don´t do it, since they seem to think that there is a mundane explanation to cases presented here.

So you just ignore all the times me and others have said "not enough information to identify"?

Why in the world they want to argue this as this shouldn´t be difficult. Or maybe it´s difficult - and if it is, I wonder why it is.

I understand your confusion since it comes from your inability to read properly. It is difficult, because there is not enough information to identify the objects discussed in this thread.

I think it´s proven in science that there are unexplained cases in UFOlogy and in paranormal. If not where are the explanations?

See previous two answers. What you personally believe is irrelevant.

 

[R.A.F.]

I have read all the pages (almost) and this is the reason I wrote about the sceptics movement´s inability to explain the cases. I am sure that science can´t explain the either.

If you can, please step forward and go. Don´t ask me what I have or have not read. It´s not about me. This is about UFO-cases.

Where are the explanations? This should be easy for you, since you claim that the cases have a mundane explanation.

Please. I am not stopping you. Go ahead. Or maybe you can´t and then must admit that you don´t have explanations.

If you do not have explanations it means that you don´t find any mundane explanations.

If you however find mundane explanations I wonder why the silence about them.

Or maybe you are presenting a case of mundanity, which we haven´t heard before which is scientific and which you don´t know if it exists. I wonder if that is mundane at all.

Go ahead. Don´t ask me, just present your answers if you have any. If not you must admit that the cases don´t have mundane explanations.

Even if some would have what about the rest?

Keep the ad hominem out of this also. I am not replying to anything with it.

I'm sorry, but blah, blah, blah...

You don't even understand how the burden of proof applies here. I'm tired of giving the ignorant the benefit of the doubt. If you can't even understand basic "rules" that all of us must abide by (if this discussion is to remain "scientific") then why should anyone "pay attention" to what you have to say??