UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Once again, you waste our time by re-posting this same old copypasta over and over despite the fact that it has nothing to do with supporting your argument, and several people have already pointed that out in no uncertain terms. We've been over this before. You posted that same blurb a couple weeks ago in the "Is Ufology Pseudoscience" thread, and several people (myself included) pointed out back then that it's a completely spurious and false analogy.

That article is talking about fitting together fragments of quantifiable, measurable material evidence into a coherent whole by means of pattern-matching algorithms on a computer. That article has absolutely nothing to do with your ill-conceived notion that a bunch of incredible claims aggregated together somehow constitute valid evidence.

Instead of trotting out the same old failed arguments, why don't you just admit that some people around here (professional scientists, for example) probably know a bit more than you do about the proper way to do research?

 

[Jocce]

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

But the lack of "twinkliness" suggests otherwise.

 

[Jocce]

There is the not inconsiderable problem of how "geese" (or birds of any variety) could be lit in such a way that they were indistingishable from stars (but no twinkle) - especially given it was midnight at the height of summer in the southern hemisphere.

Have you - or anyone else for that matter - seen geese (or birds of any variety) shine like stars and move in the pattern described? Especially as there was no sunlight by which they could be illuminated in the first place...

Once you get around to answering the question about what magnitude star they looked like you'll get an answer.

 

[Jocce]

It is a simple fact that they were “out there” - and although of course one can mount a theoretical argument that perhaps they were not (one can mount a theoretical argument that we simply cannot know anything at all) – at some point we have to realise that we humans are generally pretty good at perceiving the world around us and that the majority of people for the majority of the time do not make such perceptual errors. The UFO debunkers simply see the flood of UFO reports come in and assume that people make mistakes all the time

I assume that people MIGHT make mistakes. Especially when it comes to estimating altitude of point light sources flying overhead at night. It's not a simple fact that they were "out there". It is a claim of yours that you have yet to substantiate. Any comment yet on the lack of "twinkliness"?

 

[Jocce]

the Navy, the Air Force and Baker’s own analyses have all suggested that the “birds hypothesis” cannot be supported.

So I ask again. Provide a source that rules out birds as a possibility.

 

[Rramjet]

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Once again, you waste our time by re-posting this same old copypasta over and over despite the fact that it has nothing to do with supporting your argument…

It merely seemed to me that people had some misconceptions about what “weight of evidence” actually meant and I was merely clarifying, for the benefit of others, what the term actually means.

…it's a completely spurious and false analogy.

No analogy. The statement merely conceptualises “weight of evidence” for us and allows us to assess any evidence we might come across (including anecdotal) in light of its principles.

That article is talking about fitting together fragments of quantifiable, measurable material evidence into a coherent whole by means of pattern-matching algorithms on a computer. That article has absolutely nothing to do with your ill-conceived notion that a bunch of incredible claims aggregated together somehow constitute valid evidence.

The article the quote was drawn from is actually irrelevant to the principles outlined in that quote. That is, the quote constitutes a general statement of principle – applicable to all evidence – including anecdotal.

Instead of trotting out the same old failed arguments, why don't you just admit that some people around here (professional scientists, for example) probably know a bit more than you do about the proper way to do research?

This, perhaps unsurprisingly, seems a somewhat elitist approach to science and logic. Does the JREF not purport to promote scientific and critical thought among the general population? And if that message is received by a member of the public and they note a concern about an alleged scientific methodology or a flaw in some logic or themselves promote a statement of principle – only to then be told their opinion is invalid because they are not a “professional scientist” …even if that were true, it kind of defeats JREF’s whole reason for being doesn’t it?

 

[Rramjet]

But the lack of "twinkliness" suggests otherwise.

Using that logic satellites are then close to the ground because they lack twinkle?

Once you get around to answering the question about what magnitude star they looked like you'll get an answer.

Oh? Was that question posed then? I must have missed it.

Probably around magnitude 3 (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm)

I assume that people MIGHT make mistakes. Especially when it comes to estimating altitude of point light sources flying overhead at night. It's not a simple fact that they were "out there". It is a claim of yours that you have yet to substantiate. Any comment yet on the lack of "twinkliness"?

Have you never come across the concept that stars twinkle and satellites don’t (tend to) because of refractive atmospheric affects? Your use of the term “twinkliness” suggests you have not. It is just that I am not sure that stars (or other objects) can be categorised in that way – magnitude yes – “twinkliness” no.

I have provided my reasons for coming to the conclusion – perhaps you missed it?

The first reason I state that the objects were satellite height is that I have observed many satellites and these were no different in character. The second is that I have observed many other mundane objects cross overhead at night (including jets in the stratosphere) and these things were just way beyond that. They also passed over a range of hills to the north, again providing an impression of great height. Also, both Mr X and Mr Y conjectured (at first) that they must be satellites – so I was not the only one who concluded that the objects were “way out there”. There was also the pinpoint intensity of the luminosity. Closer objects just do not give that “pinpoint”.

I could also add that the "starlike" projections from that "pinpoint" are also a giveaway.

So I ask again. Provide a source that rules out birds as a possibility.

A mere possibility, in the face of evidence to the contrary, does not equate to probable, likely or even plausible.

 

[Jocce]

Using that logic satellites are then close to the ground because they lack twinkle?


Oh? Was that question posed then? I must have missed it.

Probably around magnitude 3 (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm)

Have you never come across the concept that stars twinkle and satellites don’t (tend to) because of refractive atmospheric affects? Your use of the term “twinkliness” suggests you have not. It is just that I am not sure that stars (or other objects) can be categorised in that way – magnitude yes – “twinkliness” no.

I have provided my reasons for coming to the conclusion – perhaps you missed it?

I could also add that the "starlike" projections from that "pinpoint" are also a giveaway.

I find it hard to believe that it was difficult to find a group of moving mag 3 lights in a non light poluted area. Something doesn't add up in the story. For the rest of it, you know that they were objects outside the earths atmosphere but unaffected by atmospheric refraction? have I understood you correctly?

A mere possibility, in the face of evidence to the contrary, does not equate to probable, likely or even plausible.

You can't possibly know if it's probable or not. If they were birds, then the probability is 100%, if not, it was 0%. Also, there is nothing in the natural or technological world that makes it impossible.

 

[Jocce]

Rramjet, re. your own observation. Did you check to see if there are any known satellites passing at that time and place? There's a lot of free software online that lets you do that.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

WOW ! you have got to be kidding!

 

[Jocce]

@HENTAI...: Nope.

 

[Rramjet]

I find it hard to believe that it was difficult to find a group of moving mag 3 lights in a non light poluted area. Something doesn't add up in the story.

(Shrugs) Believe whatever you like, I just told the story as it was. At first I did not see the lights when Mr Y mentioned them, but when they were pointed out, they were unmistakable.

For the rest of it, you know that they were objects outside the earths atmosphere but unaffected by atmospheric refraction? have I understood you correctly?

They did not seem to be twinkling, if that is what you mean.

You can't possibly know if it's probable or not. If they were birds, then the probability is 100%, if not, it was 0%. Also, there is nothing in the natural or technological world that makes it impossible.

Yes there is. Their height for a start. And the fact that they were starbright pinpricks of light - when no light source was available. They also did not move as birds might. Their track did not waver, the distance between them did not vary and the first two of the four were oscillating about a central point between them. Birds it was not.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, re. your own observation. Did you check to see if there are any known satellites passing at that time and place? There's a lot of free software online that lets you do that.

You mean four satellites in a row with the first two oscillating around a central point between them? Sure, I'll see what I can do.

ETA: First impressions - I do note that the transit times are 5-6 minutes (the transit time for my objects would have been in the order of 40-50 seconds).

ETA: Second impression - it's not that easy to get the historical data in a meaningful format - do you know of a place where I can do that?

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

It is apparently your lack of critical thought that let's you down.
Evidence for the existence of gooses = lots
Evidence for the existence of Ayleeuns = none

Therefore it is more likely to be something that we have evidence for it's existence and forthermore, something that has a precedent for looking like something it's not.

Provide some evidence for ET and the weight of ET as a possible explanation will increase.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

How does something at "great height" or satellite height (essentially something that is above the atmosphere), not get affected by the exact same atmospheric effect that makes the stars twinkle?

 

[Stray Cat]

There is the not inconsiderable problem of how "geese" (or birds of any variety) could be lit in such a way that they were indistingishable from stars (but no twinkle) - especially given it was midnight at the height of summer in the southern hemisphere.

Have you - or anyone else for that matter - seen geese (or birds of any variety) shine like stars and move in the pattern described? Especially as there was no sunlight by which they could be illuminated in the first place...

This is a completely different proposition to the one you originally claimed:

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

So have you now dropped the ridiculous assertion that you were in a goose free zone where gooses fear to fly forever and always?
An assertion that at least implies you are also in communication with the Southern Hemisphere charter of the Goose Migration Council who have told you they have no plans to fly over the area in the future either.

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.

Perish the thought that a bird might have to fly over an ocean.
http://earthsky.org/biodiversity/which-bird-migrates-the-farthest
OK, it's not a goose but it fits the bill (no pun intended)

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh? Was that question posed then? I must have missed it.

Yes you must have... even though you replied to one of the points in the same post.
Actually that post asked several valid questions about your sighting, but it seems you are not willing to offer detail off your own back, it has to be squeezed out of you.

Probably around magnitude 3 (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm)

So slightly less bright than Polaris?...
And you needed them pointing out?

Wow.

Have you never come across the concept that stars twinkle and satellites don’t (tend to) because of refractive atmospheric affects? Your use of the term “twinkliness” suggests you have not. It is just that I am not sure that stars (or other objects) can be categorised in that way – magnitude yes – “twinkliness” no.

You are correct jaw-dropp), 'twinkliness' isn't a quantitative measure.
It is however a good descriptor and can be used for city lights in the mid to far distance as well as stars (and of course unicorn's farts). The common thing being that points of light, when passing through the atmosphere go through a sciency explainable 'twinkle filter'™ that makes them twinkle.
I've no idea what technology they build into satellites that prevents this from happening but either;
1). It's that component that makes satellites so damned expensive or
2). They do twinkle and you're talking out of your hat.

 

[Stray Cat]

They did not seem to be twinkling, if that is what you mean.

Then they were not as far up in the sky as you perceived them to be.

Yes there is. Their height for a start.

You have no idea what their height was... nor for that matter their altitude.

And the fact that they were starbright pinpricks of light - when no light source was available.

This is you just dismissing stuff, you're not actually falsifying any of these things.
There were no geese not ever never (and yet geese are common over most the world from the North Pole to the South Pole).
No light source... (OK I'll have brown on my gooseburger thanks)

They also did not move as birds might.

How "might" birds move?
Of the thousands of species that move in different ways, for different reasons at different times of their life and the season...

But if you are saying they were moving in a mysterious way, my vote would be you saw God. It has as much evidence as ET at the moment... Plus there's that conclusive thing about him moving in a... well you get the picture.

Their track did not waver, the distance between them did not vary and the first two of the four were oscillating about a central point between them. Birds it was not.

So at first you couldn't even see them until they pointed out and yet as soon as they were pointed out you could tell what altitude they were at, how big they were and exactly how much distance was and remained between them?
Your eyes are that good but you had trouble spotting four mag3 lights moving across a clear sky (except the mist to the westynorththingy).

Do you have any real information about this that you could share?
I've asked once already but I'll try again;
1). Date of sighting (day/month/year)
2). Location

 

[EHocking]

There is the not inconsiderable problem of how "geese" (or birds of any variety) could be lit in such a way that they were indistingishable from stars (but no twinkle) - especially given it was midnight at the height of summer in the southern hemisphere.

Have you - or anyone else for that matter - seen geese (or birds of any variety) shine like stars and move in the pattern described? Especially as there was no sunlight by which they could be illuminated in the first place...

The point you are missing (avoiding?) is NOT whether geese might be a plausible explanation, but the fact that you did not even consider the possibility. When the possibility was put to you you quite arrogantly insisted that there are no geese in southern Australia, so not even an option.

You were shown to be totally incorrect in your unsupported assertion.

The question is not whether geese are a viable explanation, but what OTHER viable explanations you have not even considered.

You continue to declare that there are no plausible, mundane explanation for your sighting, when it has been clearly demonstrated that you have barely considered all possibilities. This is true of practiccally all other cases you have presented on this thread, not just your own sighting account.

The reason this thread is so long is a direct result of that attitude to the research side of the thread title.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Satellites can and do travel in south to north directions. Satellites can travel in groups of two to three (see NOSS). Satellites can APPEAR to oscillate between each other depending on the conditions (two or more satellites moving in the same general direction at different altitudes) and the observer (the same way people can think a star appears to jump around). Satellites can have short transit times based on their altitude but we already know that estimates of time can be almost meaningless and in error.

As I stated previously, this is Rramjet's personal UFO sighting, which means asking him to be objective about it is a non-starter in the first place. He will refuse to accept explanations, come up with new details, change details to suit his needs and ensure a viable explanation can not be formulated. This is nothing new with people who report UFOs.

Since Rramjet apparently refuses to provide real details of his observation (location, date, time, azimuth, elevations), has had problems telling north from west, and seems to have difficulty with magnitude estimates (I too find it hard to believe he had difficulty locating a third magnitude satellite indicating it was probably +4 or fainter) one can only consider this an unreliable observation that contains insufficient information.