UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

If the null hypothesis is "All UFO cases are mundane in origin" (which is what it is) surely that would include "Case X"?

You must have a great mind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The null hypothesis that you have all agreed upon is provable. The alternative is unprovable.

Isn't it supposed to be the inverse?

Almost. The null hypothesis is falsifiable. It would only take one case of a confirmed non-mundane explanation to falsify it. The null hypothesis has no assumptions about unknowns. We know that the mundane exists.

We keep waiting for it to be falsified but continue to be disappointed, despite Rramjet's promise of evidence.


NOTE: I am not a scientist.

 

[corbin]

It is provable as well, it is not?

It would be a tedious matter to go through all the UFO cases and have them be explained as the result of mundane origin... but it is still possible, correct?

 

[Astrophotographer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

I don't see where this link states that such memories are highly reliable. Perhaps you can give us quotes that state such. In fact, those links state that there is doubt if these memories are accurate. From your "flashbulb" memory link:

A number of studies suggest that flashbulb memories are not especially accurate, but that they are experienced with great vividness and confidence

Which means that the memories may not be accurate but the witness will be confident in his memories and describe them in detail even though they may be wrong! This is the exact kind of thing one sees in UFO reports.

 

[Marduk]

I'm waiting for corbin to tell us about his paranormal experience, this testing the water is exactly the same thing that Ramjet did 2 years ago and KotA did 2 years before that

clearly he is looking for a gap to push his god through

the only way to tell whether or not these things exist is to experience them yourself. Even then we can't tell whether they are independent entities in the same way that I can't tell everybody else isn't just a figment of my imagination.
.

so fess up corbin, what experience have you had which proves something just to you

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is provable as well, it is not?

It would be a tedious matter to go through all the UFO cases and have them be explained... but it is still possible, correct?

I like how you think and ask questions. The null hypothesis isn't provable, it is assumed in fact. It is falsifiable by showing just one case where it is wrong.

Yes, it would be a tedious matter to go through all the UFO cases and have to try to explain each one in mundane terms, particularly since they are built up out of anecdotes. That's why the default (or null) hypothesis just assumes that the answer to each one is mundane. If someone comes along and says, "This one is not mundane." then they have the burden of proof in proving that it isn't mundane. They have made a positive claim. They have the job of falsifying the null hypothesis.

 

[Marduk]

It would be a tedious matter to go through all the UFO cases and have them be explained as the result of mundane origin... but it is still possible, correct?

you mean you haven't read all 251 pages in this thread ?

I wish I hadn't

 

[corbin]

I haven't had any "paranormal" experiences like ghosts or Jesus toast. That's not what that quote says.

 

[Marduk]

I haven't had any "paranormal" experiences like ghosts or Jesus toast. That's not what that quote says.

I wasn't asking for your ghost of Jesus toast anecdote
I was asking what paranormal event you have witnessed

 

[Astrophotographer]

As I said before, the description already precludes satellites. NO satellites fit the description of having 4 points of light, 2 oscillating.

To quote Yoda, "Hear you nothing that I say?" What makes his "oscillating" observation different than the witness who told Hendry that he saw a satellite "wobbling" or "change direction"? You are also making a claim about "no satellite". What about the NOSS satellites? The originally had three satellites in formation AND, originally, there was a dispenser with them as well as a shield. They were lost from the formation after a short period but at one point there were more than three satellites in formation. I can point to several launches in December 2008 that had several satellites and debris that shortly after launch would have been grouped together. Therefore, you can't make such claims of 4 points of light ruling out satellites. We really don't know for sure if there were 4 points of light, five, two or three. We don't know for sure. Lastly, what prevents the observation being a satellite pair with several other satellites appearing to be in formation with them (just like the pair of satellites I saw the other night and listed the prediction for in this forum).

 

[John Albert]

Blue Book:
(see The Hynek UFO Report - http://www.scribd.com/doc/43531895/J...FO-Report-1977 p.259 for example)

Hendry:

”An individual 1979 study by CUFOS researcher Allan Hendry found, as did other investigations, that only a small percentage of cases he investigated were hoaxes (<1 %) and that most sightings were actually honest misidentifications of prosaic phenomena.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#Identification_of_UFOs)​

Condon:

”… pointing to the fact that only, a very small proportion of sighters can be categorized as exhibiting psychopathology…” (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm#s7)​

You may “contend” the unfounded assertion if you like – but unless you have a reason (ie; evidence or logical argument) to believe as you do, it is merely a faith-based contention.

"Faith-based"?!? Bah! How insulting.

Of course I have a reason. You ought to know your pal John Albert well enough by now to realize I wouldn't raise a contention like that without some basis of reasoning.

As far as I've seen, neither Hynek, nor Hendry, nor Condon have described the method by which they arrived at their conclusions regarding non-objective causes (ie. hoaxes, confabulations, etc.). They throw out these figures in the 1-2% range, but how did they arrive at those numbers? How could they possibly quantify these values for certain?

Now I'm no statistician, but if you apply standard logic to the question, it's not difficult to see the problems with such a claim:

The fact that every study of UFO reports has detected some amount of hoaxes indicates that hoaxes are a real factor that adversely impacts any possible determination of true sources of these phenomena. Therefore the next question becomes, to what degree do hoaxes impact these studies, and how do you determine that?

Does the 1-2% figure represent only the percentage of cases in which lying or subterfuge was positively discovered in the investigation? If so, then it stands to reason that other hoaxes probably went undetected, so the percentage of total hoaxes (discovered + undiscovered) is almost certainly higher, probably significantly higher.

There's no good reason to believe the researchers should be in any way inured to hoaxes. Some hoaxes in the history of science have been especially convincing, even to general scientific communities consisting of tens of thousands of trained practitioners. Think Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, the Archaeoraptor, etc. Consider also the quality of evidence involved: those cases were relatively difficult to pull off because they involved the presentation of actual physical evidence in the form of bones or fossilized remains. Despite the difficulty in fabricating these hoaxes, they were all incredibly successful and enduring.

On the other hand, the study of ufology seldom examines material evidence of any kind, relying almost entirely on word-of-mouth stories and documentary forms of evidence that are easily-faked (photographs, films, etc.). Other fields of study that likewise assert extraordinary claims based solely on anecdotes and easily-faked documentary evidence have always been plagued by hoaxes (think cryptozoology, spiritualism, crop circle study, etc.), so why should ufology be any exception?

The nature of the business of ufology renders it particularly susceptible to significant fraud, yet its practitioners generally tend to downplay and trivialize the incidence of hoaxes, just like the cryptozoologists, ghost hunters and crop circle researchers do. So how can we know that the claim of 1-2% fraud rate is anything close to accurate?

Logic dictates there is no reliable way these researchers could have known for certain how many hoaxes or confabulations their investigations failed to detect, and I see no good reason to just take them at their word.

Placing the burden of proof on me to disprove their dubious claim is yet another argument from ignorance. I'm just warning you now, before you even go there.

Interestingly, when the cases were assessed for reliability, it was found that the more reliable the report, the GREATER the number of unknown categorisations there were (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24)

This is seemingly a counterintuitive result - the common UFO debunker (mis-) conception is that the less reliable the reports, the greater the proportion of unknowns. However, precisely the opposite turns out to be the case. Clearly, on the evidence the more reliable a report, the more difficult it is to assign your “confabulations not discovered by the initial researchers” explanation.

Did you even read that report you linked? Geez, man!

http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf

On page 13 of the report (page 22 of the pdf) they describe their methodology for "verifying" the cases:

During an identification conference, each sighting report was first studied, from the original data, by one person. If that person arrived at a decision, it was checked against the preliminary identification; if the two identifications were the same, the report was appropriately marked and considered finished. If the two identifications did not agree, the report was considered later by everyone participating in the conference until a group decision could be made.

If an evaluator was unable to categorize the report as one of the common objects or as a natural phenomenon, and his opinion was that the sighting should be recorded as UNKNOWN, a group decision was also required on that report before it was considered finished. A group decision was necessary on all reports finally recorded as UNKNOWN, regardless of what the preliminary identification had been. In cases where a group decision was not made within a reasonable time, the report was put aside and later submitted to certain members of the panel of consultants for their opinions. If, after this, disagreement continued to exist, the report of the
sighting was identified as UNKNOWN.

So that's their "scientific method" for determining the reliability of the reports, eh? That's even less "scientific" than the silliness that passes for research in this thread!

By the way Rramjet, this is about the 4th or 5th time I've seen you cite a reference that not only fails to back up your argument, but blatantly refutes the claim you're trying to make!

From the abstract of that report (on page viii of the report, page 9 of the pdf):

...on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge, It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical, matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

Ugology can speak for himself – if and when he returns (and given the treatment he has received here I would not blame him if he did not return) – however, I suspect you also misrepresent his beliefs as well.

Reviewing his posts leading up to his ban-stick smackdown, it appears he was suspended for spamming and dishonestly promoting his own website as an objective source after repeated warnings by the moderators.

So he has nobody but himself to blame for the "treatment he received here."

 

[corbin]

Reply to RoboTimbo and AstroP will be up later... gotta get cracking on some work.

 

[GeeMack]

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Yes, I am. I see it as the best, most methodological way to approach these cases - to first see if there are any plausible mundane explanations for the sighting as described. If so, the case can be discarded. If not, then the focus shifts from the observation to the credibility and reliability of the witness, i.e. the accuracy of the story.

Nobody has even drawn up a list of all the mundane plausible possibilities as to why someone would believe they saw what Rramjet claims he saw, or why someone would say they saw that even if they don't really believe it. You want to do a little critical thinking exercise? Start the list. I can think of maybe a half dozen mundane explanations that haven't been mentioned yet, and a quick dozen non-mundane explanations that are as well supported as ET given the complete lack of objective evidence we have.

So start here. The plausible mundane explanations for someone claiming to see what Rramjet claims to have seen are the following:

1. __________________

2. __________________​

 

[Paul2]

So start here. The plausible mundane explanations for someone claiming to see what Rramjet claims to have seen are the following:

1. Mr. Walker's Amber Restorative

2. I give up already. That's all I can think of.​

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just to prove it is no fluke that independent satellites can appear in the same area of the sky and appear to be in formation, I went to Heaven's above again and looked up tonights passes. Lo and behold I had two instances (where I had only one on Friday).

Cosmos 1634 Rocket 4.0 20:54:11 10° S 21:00:18 67° E 21:06:29 10° NNE
Cosmos 1842 Rocket 3.5 20:55:50 10° S 21:00:08 62° E 21:04:26 10° NNE

Note the maximum altitude. 5 degrees and 10 seconds apart.

CZ-2D R/B 3.7 21:23:22 17° E 21:25:12 21° ENE 21:28:30 10° NNE
Terra 3.7 21:23:37 14° E 21:25:31 17° ENE 21:28:29 10° NNE

Note the maximum altitude 4 degrees and 19 seconds apart.

Is it possible that four satellites or two and a satellite pair passed through the same area of sky? It seems unlikely but it appears possible at least. Of course, we don't have that date and location yet.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Uh, anecdotes are indeed unfalsifiable but that only means that they can't prove things.

It does not follow from that that they are useless.

You use them in a statistical analysis and end up with a probability... they are not useless by any stretch.

Have you not understood yet that when you decide to accept anecdotes as evidence, everything becomes plausible. With anecdotes as evidence we have to accept the following as real events and sciences:

acupuncture
Afrocentrism
akashic record
alchemy
aleuromancy
alien abduction
alphabiotics
alpha waves
altered state of consciousness
alternative health practice
Amityville hoax
amulets
ancient astronauts
angels
angel therapy
animal magnetism
animal quackery
anomalous cognition
anoxia
anthropomancy
anthropometry
anthroposophic medicine
anthroposophy
Apollo Moon hoax
apophenia
applied kinesiology
apport
aromatherapy
astral body
astral projection
astrolo-chi
astrology
astrotherapy
Atlantis
auras
aura therapy
autism
automatic writing
availability error
avatars
Ayurvedic medicine
Bermuda triangle
Bible Code
Bigfoot
bio-ching
bioharmonics
biofield (see New Age energy)
biorhythms
Blondlot
blue sense
breatharianism
Browne, Sylvia
bunyip
chakras
channeling
chelation therapy
chemtrail woo
chi
ch'i kung (qigong)
chiromancy
chiropractic
chupacabra
clairaudience
clairvoyance
collective unconscious
complex homeopathy
coning
conjuring
Consegrity
Consilience Energy Mirrors
cosmobiology
cosmology
craniometry
craniosacral therapy
cranioscopy
criminal profiling
crop circles
cryonics
cryptomnesia
cryptozoology
crystal power
crystal skulls
cupping
curses
curse-missing
deport
dermo-optical perception
detoxification therapies
Dianetics
diploma mill
divination
dolphin-assisted therapy
dowsing
dreams
ear candling
ectoplasm
electronic voice phenomenon
electrophotography
e-meters
ener-chi art
energy healing
energy (New Age)
enneagrams
ESP
est
evil eye
EVP
exorcisms
extispicy
extraterrestrial
facilitated communication (supported typing)
Faeries
faith healing
falun gong (falun dafa)
Family Constellations
feng shui
fetish
fire walking
fortune telling
framing
Friday the 13th
frontier medicine
full moon effects
geomancy
Gerson therapy
ghosts
glossolalia
gods
graphology
herbal fuel
holistic medicine
homeopathy
houris
hypersensory perception (HSP)
hypnosis
hystero-epilepsy
Ica stones
I Ching
incantations
incorruptible bodies
Indigo children
intelligent design
instrumental transcommunication (ITC)
intuitive healers
invocations
ionospheric ducting
iridology
isopathy
jinni
jogini
joy touch
karma
kinergetics
Kirlian photography
koro
laundry balls
law of attraction
levitation
ley lines
lie detectors
Loch Ness monster
lycanthropy
magic
magnet therapy
manifesting
massage therapy
maternal impressions
Mayan prophecies
mediums
men in black
mesmerism
metoposcopy
microacupuncture
mind control
miracles
Moritz, Andreas
morphic resonance
Moses syndrome
Mothman
moxibustion
Mozart Effect
naturopathy
Nazca lines
near-death experiences
neuro-linguistic programming
New Age therapies
Noah's Ark
the Nobel disease
Nostradamus
N-rays
numerology
occultism
odic force
ontology
oracles
orbs
orgone energy
osteopathy
Ouija boards
out-of-body experiences
palmistry
papyromancy
parapsychology
pareidolia
past life regression
perpetual motion machines
personology
phrenology
physiognomy
plant perception
poltergeist
polygraph as a lie detector
prana
prayer
precognition
predictive remote viewing
premonitions
prophecy
psi
psychics
psychic detective
psychic drift
psychic healing
psychic photography
psychic surgery
psychokinesis
psychometry
qi
qigong
Q-Link jewelry
Q-Ray bracelets
Quadro Tracker
quantum hologram
radionics
reflexology
reincarnation
remote viewing
repressed memory therapy
retrocognition
revelation
rumpology
runes
saints
Santa Claus
sarcode
sarcognomy
Sasquatch
Satan
scapulimancy
Scientology
scopaethesia
scrying
shamanism
shark cartilage as a cancer cure
shroud of Turin
sixth sense
slate writing
sorcery
souls
spells
spirit photography
spiritualism
spontaneous human combustion
stichomancy
stigmata
succubus
tachyons and takionics
talismans
tantra
tarot cards
telekinesis
telepathy
teleportation
Tensegrity
theosophy
therapeutic touch
thought field therapy
thoughtography
trance writing
Transcendental Meditation
transubstantiation
trepanation
Trudeau, Kevin
tyromancy
unicorns
urine therapy
uromancy
vampire
weeping statues
werewolves
Wicca
wishful thinking
witches
wizards
Yellow Bamboo
Yeti
yin-yang
Zeitoun
zenreiki
zombies



Can you not see how ridiculous the world would be if anecdotes and stories were to be taken literally for silly reasons like "he had no reason to lie"; she's a credible witness"; "it's possible"; "we've run out of mundane explanations"; etc..

Get real folks.

 

[Marduk]

Reply to RoboTimbo and AstroP will be up later... gotta get cracking on some work.

so you're not going to answer my simple question ?

I was asking what paranormal event you have witnessed

maybe you could just answer yes or no
have you ever experienced anything that others would call paranormal ?

 

[Astrophotographer]

As far as the whole "hoax" thing goes, I think Rramjet overlooked one important thing that Hendry stated regarding hoaxes and photographs:

I noted earlier in examining the conclusions of the 1,307 UFO reports that hoaxes did not figure at all into the scheme of things--rather misperceptions of some existing stimulus were responsible. This situation is not the case, however, when it comes to cases involving photographs, where a significant population of deliberate fraud exists. The failure of photographs to serve as impersonal proof of the existence of UFOs up to now lay largely in the ease of fabricating fake photos of small models that couldn't be distinguished from the real thing. (page 204)

The bottom line here is that, at least when it comes to UFO photographs (and videos), hoaxes seem to occur much more frequently.

 

[Stray Cat]

so you're not going to answer my simple question ?

The question was simple... The answer however, will probably take some time to convolute.

 

[Marduk]

I found a cool one

I can't find Brockton Massachusetts on google earth
anyone know the place ?