UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

First let me deal with my sighting report (see middle of this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7444230#post7444230):

There are currently two proposed explanatory hypotheses: The “birds” hypothesis and the “multiple satellite” hypothesis.

Considering birds, one has to explain how birds can be illuminated so that they become practically indistinguishable from stars/satellites.

Considering the multiple satellite hypothesis, one has to explain the period (about 1 minute) and also the (regular and predictable) oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them.

Unless those things can be explained, then the “birds” and the “multiple satellite” hypotheses remain implausible.


Regarding the “null hypothesis” testing where:

H₀: All UFO sightings are of mundane origin​

and

If the H₀ is true, then we would expect no difference on defined characteristics between known category reports and unknown category reports.​

The current argument is about whether this is a legitimate test or whether there are factors that would potentially skew the results.

For example the proposal has been put that the hoax/psychological category of reports might skew the results.

First the generally accepted rate of hoax/psychological report is actually very small – in the order of 1-2% (see The Hynek UFO Report - http://www.scribd.com/doc/43531895/J-Allen-Hynek-The-Hynek-UFO-Report-1977 p.259 for example). Meaning of course that in any statistical analysis the effect of this category of reports on the outcome will be very small. To put that in perspective we are talking just 1 or 2 in every 100 cases - and that is simply not enough to skew the distribution significantly.

Further, as we are talking about Chi-Square analysis (number observed v. number expected) you could control for that percentage by using 1 or 2 cases less on the unknown category side for every 100 cases in that category examined.

However, cutting to the chase, as AstroP points out, the research has already been conducted (here http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - pp 60-76 ).

In that study the characteristics of colour, number (of objects), shape, duration (of sighting), speed and brightness were examined. In the first pass, all categories except brightness showed a significant difference. In the second pass (where all astronomical cases were removed from the known category of reports) ALL results were significant.

This means of course that the, according to the study hypothesis, the unkowns are not drawn from the same population as the knowns.

Interestingly, despite the positive (significant) result, the authors of the report state:

”The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical phenomena.” (p. 76)​

Here of course the authors are simply ignoring the statistically significant result of their own analysis! That is, either the result is significant (in which case it indicates the population from which each caegory is drawn is not the same) or it is not (and the population is the same). There can be no “halfway” result here. There is no “inconclusive” – the results are conclusive – in that a statistically significant result was obtained. The authors of the report simply could not bring themselves to acknowledge it! LOL.

This then was a test of the hypothesis that all UFO reports are of mundane origin – and the result falsified that hypothesis.

Now of course that does not explain the unkowns – it is just that, according to this analysis, they don’t seem explicable in terms of the mundane. In other words, as I have been contending all along, they defy (plausible) mundane explanation.

 

[GeeMack]

First let me deal with my sighting report (see middle of this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7444230#post7444230):

There are currently two proposed explanatory hypotheses: The “birds” hypothesis and the “multiple satellite” hypothesis.

It would be a lie, of course, to suggest there aren't several more possibilities, equally supported by the available evidence, that could explain the alleged event as described.

 

[corbin]

It would be a lie, of course, to suggest there aren't several more possibilities, equally supported by the available evidence, that could explain the alleged event as described.

Enlighten us. Which other possibilities fit the description?

Really, it is quite clear that the characteristics of the description given cannot be explained by any mundane origin. At this point you should be questioning the reliability of the witness, not trying to convince people that such a peculiar sight was just birds or multiple satellites moving in an impossible fashion.

 

[John Albert]

That's why you compare a sufficiently large number of cases such that the margin of error incurred by there being "new" mundane characteristics in the 5% category is statistically insignificant. This would not be difficult to do with a sufficient number of cases. The more you have, the less the chance of one of the 5% characteristics to be unexplained.

Fine, but that still doesn't address the problem of non-objective causes (ie. hoaxes, lies, dreams, hallucinations, mental instability, etc.). The reports he's cited claim those sorts of causes amounted to something around 1-2% of all cases. But how do we know that figure is accurate?

Lying (even pathological lying or confabulation) is not always detectable during a face-to-face interview, no matter how astute the interviewer may consider himself to be. There is absolutely no way of knowing how many of the Blue Book and other cases are really the result of successful hoaxes and confabulations that fooled the researchers. As I pointed out several times before, I feel that 1-2% is most likely a significantly under-representative statistic for non-objective causes.

It all basically boils down to this: I have serious doubts about the basic findings of the Blue Book study. We have insufficient information about their methods of collecting, investigating and deciding of the individual reports. The study promotes deceptively specific findings like stats for non-objective causes (which, as I've already pointed out, is really impossible for the researchers to have known for certain), so how can we be sure any of it is really accurate? It is, after all, merely a collection of stories.

Comparing "characteristics" of all confirmed "mundane" reports to "unexplained" reports is already messy enough (with only anecdotes to go on, the huge margins for error, etc.) but then adding the uncertainty of hoaxes and confabulations into the mix just makes it worse.

*Sigh* The 1.5% number itself is not being dismissed on account of the study being flawed.

"The study being flawed" is the very point I'm trying to make. I understand that particular point is irrelevant to the context that Rramjet was using, but that doesn't detract from my point that the study is flawed.

It is being recognized as comparatively insignificant when compared, in a statistical analysis, to much bigger numbers.

I contend that not only are the studies flawed and the number they attribute to hoax is far lower than it ought to be, but even that diminished 1.5% figure is not insignificant when compared with the 5% figure attributed to unexplained cases. A large proportion, or even all of those unexplained cases might be attributable to hoaxes as well.

Its a pesky case where "1.5% is insignificant" has a totally different meaning in two contexts.

Yeah, it's also irrelevant because the arguments against both contexts are valid and need to be addressed.

It was originally claimed by Access Denied that Rramjet was claiming the 1.5% number is insignificant BY ITSELF on account of the study being flawed. Access Denied then said that by extension, the 5% would also be insignificant by Rramjet's presumed logic. The only problem is that Rramjet never claimed that the 1.5% number was insignificant by itself on account of the study being flawed, therefore, you can't extend this logic to the 5%... because he never claimed it. In this case, the argument remains internally consistent.

"Internally consistent" maybe, but not consistent with good research practice.

Don't pigeonhole yourself into thinking that UFO's must be ET.

Oh, don't you worry about that. I'm not "pigeonholed into thinking" anything of the sort. Those kinds of jumps to conclusion are Rramjet's and ufology's domain, not mine.

So you admit that we would see the same characteristics in both cases if the 5% are explained by mundane causes?

As I have said many times already, I'd expect to see some amount of correlation, but even if there was little or no correlation, what would that prove?

All you could reasonably deduce from that outcome is that those cases represent either more non-objective confabulations not discovered by the initial investigation, or else some objective causes not attributed to known objects by the initial investigation. Basically no difference from what we already know about them.

 

[Turgor]

First let me deal with my sighting report (see middle of this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7444230#post7444230):

There are currently two proposed explanatory hypotheses: The “birds” hypothesis and the “multiple satellite” hypothesis.

Considering birds, one has to explain how birds can be illuminated so that they become practically indistinguishable from stars/satellites.

Considering the multiple satellite hypothesis, one has to explain the period (about 1 minute) and also the (regular and predictable) oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them.

Unless those things can be explained, then the “birds” and the “multiple satellite” hypotheses remain implausible.

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.

So far I have only seen 11:45 pm for the time as anything concrete. The rest remains vague. I do not think satellites or birds can be ruled out at this point.

 

[John Albert]

However, cutting to the chase, as AstroP points out, the research has already been conducted (here http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - pp 60-76 ).

In that study the characteristics of colour, number (of objects), shape, duration (of sighting), speed and brightness were examined. In the first pass, all categories except brightness showed a significant difference. In the second pass (where all astronomical cases were removed from the known category of reports) ALL results were significant.

This means of course that the, according to the study hypothesis, the unkowns are not drawn from the same population as the knowns.

Interestingly, despite the positive (significant) result, the authors of the report state:

”The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical phenomena.” (p. 76)​

Here of course the authors are simply ignoring the statistically significant result of their own analysis!

They're not ignoring the results.

Sounds to me like they're just being scientific, and avoiding jumping to any conclusions. Just because the two categories of reports are "drawn from different populations," that does not tell us anything at all about the actual causes of the reports. All it tells us is that some of their characteristics are not consistent with any of the known, explained cases.

It doesn't mean they didn't result from mundane causes, only that they may have resulted from different mundane causes than the reports in the "knowns" category. In other words, there's still nothing to support a jump to the conclusion of outer space aliens or any other paranormal, non-earthly causes.

That is, either the result is significant (in which case it indicates the population from which each caegory is drawn is not the same) or it is not (and the population is the same). There can be no “halfway” result here. There is no “inconclusive” – the results are conclusive – in that a statistically significant result was obtained. The authors of the report simply could not bring themselves to acknowledge it! LOL.

There you go, running off the rails again. I know you're excited, but please try to keep it together enough to think rationally about this:

This then was a test of the hypothesis that all UFO reports are of mundane origin – and the result falsified that hypothesis.

In other words, as I have been contending all along, they defy (plausible) mundane explanation.

It did not falsify the null hypothesis, and it did not prove that UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation. It did not control for hoaxes, lies, confabulations, or other non-objective causes, and there's absolutely no way of controlling for mundane causes yet unidentified.

All it proved is something we already know: those cases represent either more non-objective confabulations not discovered by the initial investigation, or else some objective causes not attributed to known objects by the initial investigation. There's still no evidence that the reports are inexplicable, only unexplained.

 

[corbin]

So far I have only seen 11:45 pm for the time as anything concrete. The rest remains vague. I do not think satellites or birds can be ruled out at this point.

Suppose you had all the information. Say it occured at 11:46:05-11:46:47 p.m., April 4, 2011, 29° 45' 47" N / 95° 21' 47" W, 30 ft. elevation, at a precisely defined part of the sky.

None of these details has anything to do with the fact that the object as described does not look remotely like birds or satellites.

 

[GeeMack]

Enlighten us. Which other possibilities fit the description?

Really, it is quite clear that the characteristics of the description given cannot be explained by any mundane origin.

The alleged characteristics absolutely can be explained by several common, mundane, and known to exist possibilities, as well as multitudes of possibilities not known to exist but equally supported by the available evidence. That you can't personally imagine those alternative explanations does not make them cease to exist. In fact, if you were to apply some skepticism and critical thinking to the matter, many of them should be obvious to you, too.

At this point you should be questioning the reliability of the witness, not trying to convince people that such a peculiar sight was just birds or multiple satellites moving in an impossible fashion.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Only one person here is convinced, and apparently trying to convince others, of some particular thing. Rramjet seems to believe the thing he saw could best be explained as something of extraterrestrial origin. He has offered mostly unverifiable anecdotes, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance to support his belief. Reasonably minded skeptics, when applying critical thinking to the situation, aren't going to buy it on some alien-believer's fish tales and otherwise complete lack of objective support.

 

[Resume]

None of these details has anything to do with the fact that the object as described does not look remotely like birds or satellites.

The Goodyear blimp I saw a group of friends didn't look anything at all like a blimp from our perspective. Right up to the point we said "Oh, that's the Goodyear Blimp, not an alien spaceship."

 

[corbin]

ETA: @ GeeMack

So you seem to admit that the sighting as described cannot be explained by either birds or satellites, otherwise there would be no need to allege the existence of "alternative mundane explanations."

You say that there are other mundane explanations, but won't tell what these are. Please, tell us what they are. I'm so stupid that I can't think of anything mundane that looks like what was described.

 

[corbin]

The Goodyear blimp I saw a group of friends didn't look anything at all like a blimp from our perspective. Right up to the point we said "Oh, that's the Goodyear Blimp, not an alien spaceship."

Can you explain in a less obtuse manner what mundane explanation you are proposing for Rramjet's description?

 

[Astrophotographer]

First let me deal with my sighting report (see middle of this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7444230#post7444230):

There are currently two proposed explanatory hypotheses: The “birds” hypothesis and the “multiple satellite” hypothesis.

Considering birds, one has to explain how birds can be illuminated so that they become practically indistinguishable from stars/satellites.

Considering the multiple satellite hypothesis, one has to explain the period (about 1 minute) and also the (regular and predictable) oscillation of the leading pair about a central point between them.

Unless those things can be explained, then the “birds” and the “multiple satellite” hypotheses remain implausible..

And yet you still REFUSE to give specifics about your sighting. You have no date or location. I can only assume that you refuse to reveal your location because it would indicate your identity (although I am confident I probably know who you are at this point). The refusal about the date is because you probably CAN'T REMEMBER the exact date, which makes your observation a recollection where the details are vague and can be flawed in recollection. That brings into question your observations of angular speed and this "oscillation" around a central point. Of course, it is highly plausible that you "imagined" the oscillation just like Hendry's witnesses "imagined" a "wobble". Additionally, it is highly plausible that you have exaggerated or "misremembered" the angular speeds. Therefore, your entire argument about it being "implausible" is because you don't want it to be "plausible". BTW, when you do remember the date, I have a few more "plausible" objects that may have been the source of your "formation".

However, cutting to the chase, as AstroP points out, the research has already been conducted (here http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - pp 60-76 ).

Like I said, this sounds more like "clucking" as Rramjet already knew the results of what he proposed but acted as if he did not know his conclusions beforehand. So, when he claimed that he was willing to accept the risk, he was just being dishonest.

By this post, I can only assume that you are, again, refusing to study the problem independently and use the database from NUFORC as I proposed.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm so stupid that I can't think of anything mundane that looks like what was described.

Okay.

What did it look like to you?

 

[corbin]

Okay.

What did it look like to you?

If the description is accurate and Rramjet wasn't making perceptual errors, then it looked like... something inexplicable by mundane causes. Any effort at identification beyond that (ET's, experimental government, paranormal) is mere conjecture.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Suppose you had all the information. Say it occured at 11:46:05-11:46:47 p.m., April 4, 2011, 29° 45' 47" N / 95° 21' 47" W, 30 ft. elevation, at a precisely defined part of the sky.

None of these details has anything to do with the fact that the object as described does not look remotely like birds or satellites.

That ASSUMES that Rramjet is accurate in his recollections from over two years ago. You can' t prove that his recollections are accurate and neither can he. You are simply accepting his observations as factual, which the history of UFO reports demonstrates is not that good an idea.

If you look at how people have misinterpreted things like satellites and other IFOs (see Hendry's UFO handbook and the quote I gave earlier), you can see exactly how it is possible these observations could be in error and that they could be satellites or birds.

 

[dafydd]

How do the aliens know that we are here? The blue dot is the extent of our radio broadcasts. The words microscopic,needle and and very big haystack come to mind.

 

[GeeMack]

If the description is accurate and Rramjet wasn't making perceptual errors, then it looked like... something inexplicable by mundane causes. Any effort at identification beyond that (ET's, experimental government, paranormal) is mere conjecture.

The question was, what did it look like to you? Of course if you didn't see it, acknowledging that would be an acceptable response.

 

[Resume]

Can you explain in a less obtuse manner what mundane explanation you are proposing for Rramjet's description?

Sure. People see stuff all the time, mis-remember what they thought they saw, mis-indentify what they thought they saw, retrofit an explanation as to what they thought they saw.

 

[John Albert]

Enlighten us. Which other possibilities fit the description?

You say that there are other mundane explanations, but won't tell what these are. Please, tell us what they are. I'm so stupid that I can't think of anything mundane that looks like what was described.

Corbin, are you by any chance familiar with the expression, "argument from ignorance"?

 

[corbin]

That ASSUMES that Rramjet is accurate in his recollections from over two years ago. You can' t prove that his recollections are accurate and neither can he. You are simply accepting his observations as factual, which the history of UFO reports demonstrates is not that good an idea.

If you look at how people have misinterpreted things like satellites and other IFOs (see Hendry's UFO handbook and the quote I gave earlier), you can see exactly how it is possible these observations could be in error and that they could be satellites or birds.

You are absolutely correct that I am assuming the recollections are accurate. That is precisely why I said the question is one of credibility/reliability of the witness, since it appears that if we assume the recollection is accurate, it cannot be explained by any mundane cause.

If the witness is credible and the report is reliable, and the report has already to be determined as insufficiently explained by mundane causes, then you have something that deserves further consideration.