UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

I'm pretty sure that's one of those things that might rightly be called an "unfounded assertion."

 

[Paul2]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

The more I read that, the more extraordinary (!) it becomes.

I'm dying to see some reputable source confirm Rramjet's idea here. Not only is it unlikely when one considers how perception works, as others have already pointed out, but it's even more unlikely that a reputable source would shift the burden of proof in the manner that Rramjet's idea does.

Rramjet's idea of the burden of proof is, "you must prove the perception wrong, rather than the perceiver must corroborate what they claim to have seen."

 

[John Albert]

As others have pointed out before, the term "anecdotal evidence" is a misnomer. Anecdotes are more properly categorized as "claims," rather than "evidence."

An anecdote itself does not constitute evidence; the anecdote is the claim for which supporting evidence is required. In the absence of supporting evidence, an anecdote is practically useless.

 

[TjW]

So the ocean was South and East, the hills were North and West, It was clear night but there was a sea mist but it wasn't where the sea was?

It was midnight on the ocean,
Not a streetcar was in sight,
And the sun was shining brightly,
For it rained all day that night.
'Twas a summer night in winter,
And the rain was snowing fast,
And a barefoot boy with shoes on
Stood a-sitting in the grass.

This is the way we pass the time away.

 

[Akhenaten]

So the ocean was South and East, the hills were North and West, It was clear night but there was a sea mist but it wasn't where the sea was?

Wire, briar, limber-lock,
Four geese in a flock.

One flew east, one flew west,
And two flew over the cuckoo's nest.​

 

[Turgor]

As others have pointed out before, the term "anecdotal evidence" is a misnomer. Anecdotes are more properly categorized as "claims," rather than "evidence."

An anecdote itself does not constitute evidence; the anecdote is the claim for which supporting evidence is required. In the absence of supporting evidence, an anecdote is practically useless.

This cannot be repeated often enough to sink in for some people apparently. I do not see a way to make the point about anecdotes being inadmissable as evidence more clear than that.

ETA: an anecdote is just another claim.

 

[Rramjet]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

It is a well documented principle Paul. And that principle can be found in any textbook on the principles of perception and arises from the fact that there are many factors that “interfere” with our direct observation of the world. Physical (the construction of the eye and brain and the connections between them), environmental (the factors in the environment that act to distort our perceptions) and cognitive (learned and innate heuristics and biases) and the interplay between all of those.

It is a simple fact that not all of those factors will be operative in every observational context and that not all of them, even if present in a particular context, will act to detrimentally affect our perception.

They key is in understanding which factors play a role (and how they do) in any given situation.

When presented with a UFO report like the Fortenberry/Nash incident we can look to see what factors among the physical, environmental and cognitive might have played a role in the observation. Some environmental factors have already been discussed (night time, cockpit windows, etc), but the more of those factors we can rule out as being substantially influential, the more reliable we might consider the report to be.

It is a principle Paul, to which we apply scientific methodology.

Now I suppose you too will completely ignore my statements in that regard, just as everyone else has?

I asked for documentation, not explanation. If you don't want to provide it, or think that I should find it myself, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. But the explanation that you provided above should not be confused with documentation.

I asked for documentation, not explanation. If you don't want to provide it, or think that I should find it myself, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. But the explanation that you provided above should not be confused with documentation.

LOL. I knew, along with everyone else, you would ignore my explanation. Indeed you must, because, just as with my null hypothesis, to even so much as acknowledge it would be to begin undermine the foundations of your belief system – and I think you all know that and are simply running away from it (them) as fast as possible.

You'll have to excuse my sometimes flippant writing style, but at the moment, geese are still more likely than aliens.

There is a difference between flippant and a lack of critical thought. The above displays a lack of critical thought. AS you cannot know what the likelihood of ET is, then you cannot possibly compare its likelihood with anything else.

 

[Akhenaten]

“perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.”

Drivel.


There are always factors affecting perception, and you have know way of knowing which ones are involved in any particular sighting and know way of calculating the amount of effect each one would have had.

 

[Rramjet]

Does the lack of twinklyness not suggest you were looking at them without the distortion of the Earths atmosphere? ie: they were lower in altitude and closer than you perceived them to be.

No, they were at a great height, there can be no doubt about it.

 

[Turgor]

These were my thoughts exactly. Here in NH at lat 43 degrees we have satellites all night long. In fact, about a week ago about 11:32 PM EDT, I saw a Geosynchronous (or is geostationary?) satellite glint that lasted for about 30 seconds. It spiked around magnitude +2 just below Aquila. I also saw many other bright satellite passes (+3 to +4) around midnight. I noted them but did not write them down. I guess I have to start my log up again for these sort of things. I have been remiss.

This does not mean that it was satellites but it indicates that satellites can not be eliminated.

I was not completely clear in my original post, i said sky when I meant to say just a few hundred meters, perhaps 1km. Definitely not the range of man made satellites. But man made satellites do reflect the sun at much closer ranges than 18,000km above the earth all night long, provided the conditions are right.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, they were at a great height, there can be no doubt about it.

I think you'll find that there can be, and is, doubt about every aspect of the story.

 

[EHocking]

...There is a difference between flippant and a lack of critical thought. The above displays a lack of critical thought. AS you cannot know what the likelihood of ET is, then you cannot possibly compare its likelihood with anything else.

And yet, despite your ignorance of Australian birds, you vehemently dismiss the possibility that your sighting might well have been explained by a flight of geese, since

Originally Posted by Rramjet
…but there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will.

Lack of critical thought indeed.

For that matter, there is nowhere for any migrating bird to have come from but the open ocean… unless perhaps they were Emperor Penguins. LOL.

... and you berate others for their flippant replies.

At least they investigate whether there ARE any geese that might exist in Southern Australia before declaring " No geese live in the area... Never have and never will."

I notice you seem to have ignored my previous post on the subject, so thought I'd bring it to your attention again.

 

[Turgor]

These were my thoughts exactly. Here in NH at lat 43 degrees we have satellites all night long. In fact, about a week ago about 11:32 PM EDT, I saw a Geosynchronous (or is geostationary?) satellite glint that lasted for about 30 seconds. It spiked around magnitude +2 just below Aquila. I also saw many other bright satellite passes (+3 to +4) around midnight. I noted them but did not write them down. I guess I have to start my log up again for these sort of things. I have been remiss.

This does not mean that it was satellites but it indicates that satellites can not be eliminated.

[OT] I think a geostationary orbit is a particular geosynchronous orbit where the orbit is exactly around the equator. Geosynchronous satellites also orbit the earth in 1 sidereal day but because they're not orbiting the equator we see them move from north to south and back again over the course of 1 day.[/OT]

 

[RoboTimbo]

LOL. I knew, along with everyone else, you would ignore my explanation. Indeed you must, because, just as with my null hypothesis, to even so much as acknowledge it would be to begin undermine the foundations of your belief system – and I think you all know that and are simply running away from it (them) as fast as possible.

All in favor of simply accepting Rramjet's word for it?

 

[Turgor]

All in favor of simply accepting Rramjet's word for it?

nay

ETA: it said aye there for a second or 30.. I really should get to sleep, but I probably won't.

 

[Paul2]

LOL. I knew, along with everyone else, you would ignore my explanation.

What you have precisely and exactly done is to claim that I'm ignoring your explanation when your explanation was ignoring my original request for documentation, not explanation.

I gave you the option of not providing the documentation, I will now claim the option of not engaging you about your explanation, as we've been down that road before.

 

[Astrophotographer]

No, they were at a great height, there can be no doubt about it.

How do you know that? Didn't we go down this path before about estimating distances to an object against a clear sky (in this case a clear dark sky with the only thing for reference is the stars)?

 

[wollery]

And you're still ignoring my refutation of your "null hypothesis" and the several posts that point out that you're ignoring it.

And still trying to pass it off as a null hypothesis, while berating others for failing to "even so much as acknowledge it". I've acknowledged it and pointed out, in reference to a webpage that you presented as being a good explanation of what a null hypothesis is, why your proposed null hypothesis is nothing of the sort.

To simply ignore my post makes you appear dishonest.

 

[Rramjet]

What you have precisely and exactly done is to claim that I'm ignoring your explanation when your explanation was ignoring my original request for documentation, not explanation.

I gave you the option of not providing the documentation, I will now claim the option of not engaging you about your explanation, as we've been down that road before.

Paul – you continue to ignore the basic principles involved.

You have a perceptual response to your environment do you not? That much is undeniable. It does not need to be “documented”.

There are factors which mediate that perceptual response. That much also is undeniable – but those mediating factors do need to be documented.

In an effort to document those factors we may consider the general categories of those mediating factors to fall into three: the physical (structure of the eye, brain and connections), environmental (stimulus and cues in the environment) and cognitive (heuristics and biases).

Now to outline how all those factors come together and apply would take a textbook of information – and I am not about to write out a textbook for you. What I can do however is point you to reference sources where you can find that information – and in that regard the search terms that will give you the biggest 'bang for your buck' are “principles of perception” and “heuristics and biases”.

I cannot force you to learn or to understand - you must undertake that journey of your own volition - but you must at least make some kind of effort toward that before complaining that there is no documentation. There patently is documentation - you (and the others here) are just not acknowledging it.

(and of course we have a pretty good idea why that might be so)

 

[Rramjet]

Are you now suggesting that peer-review is worthless?

It is critically valuable. The Robertson Panel pointed to a potential error in the densitometer analysis. That would normally require the analysts to revisit that part of their analysis to check their work. However, the potential for error does not mean there was an error. Interestingly the panel (for various reasons) recommended against revisiting the analysis.

And are you ever going to respond to my other posts. You know, the ones that directly address your arguments that you haven't even acknowledged I posted.

I am gratified that you might believe that I am some sort of superhuman who can respond to each and every post someone places in this thread. Perhaps you can provide a succinct statement of your principal arguments for me and we can take it from there?