UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Rramjets UFO encounter reminded me of this Deadliest Catch episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u2iWe074Z0

 

[John Albert]

First, if I believe the case has no plausible mundane explanation I have a right to say so – especially if I explain the reasons for my coming to that belief.

You tell 'em, Rramjet! Stand up and fight for your God-given right to make arguments from ignorance! Your bravery is an inspiration to pseudoscientists everywhere.

It is my claim that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation – though I don’t see how that is a problem for me – for you perhaps – but not for me.

That's not a fact, but an opinion. Whether or not something is plausible is a subjective value judgment. What one person finds plausible, another may reject as implausible.

Your hypothesis about "Some UFO stories defy plausible mundane explanation" makes about as much sense as hypothesizing that Michael Bay's next movie will contain a satisfactory quantity of explosions or tomorrow will turn out to be a nice day.

That is why your hypothesis is unfalsifiable. It's entirely predicated upon your own subjective opinion. Setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is "plausible" is an arrogant, pseudoscientific approach.

By the way, it seems incongruous that your standards for "evidence" are so lenient, while at the same time your standards for "plausible explanations" can be so ridiculously high. I wonder if some kind of extreme bias might be the cause of such an inconsistency...

I am not claiming to “prove” anything. That is why I include the term “defies” in my characterisation (meaning to resist plausible mundane explanation – not to prove none exist).

I think I understand... this all ties into that whole argument about not claiming to be doing science so as to avoid the designation of "pseudoscientist." Am I right?

That is NOT my “basic claim” – my basic claim is that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation (nothing more, nothing less) – it is perhaps a result of confirmation bias that you read something else into it? - and do I need to explain the meaning of defy …again?

Wow. "Confirmation bias." Incredible.

Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Ms. Kettle.

My claim is falsifiable. All you need to do is come up with a plausible mundane explanation.

Nice one, but I'm not falling for that. I've read enough of this thread to understand how you operate.

You trot out case after case, challenging the skeptics to provide a mundane explanation that is "plausible" from your own biased perspective. But of course there's a catch. You simply reject every one of their mundane explanations out of hand using the most obtuse and dishonest arguments this side of creationism.

No thanks.

This entire thread should be remaned to:

"Rramjet's Extraordinary Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam Free-For-All."

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.

No, you won't. This is a lie, and I can prove it.

See the last 252 pages of this thread for the damning evidence. On every single page, you've gone through the most absurd intellectual contortions to deny every plausible mundane explanation anybody has put forward, scarcely giving an honest consideration to a single one.

All you've done by way of proving this untenable position is to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics to disprove your own unfalsifiable claim that these events are inexplicable.

Any explanation put forward must be plausible. Such explanations must account for the evidence. I will reject any explanation that does not fulfil those criteria.

This entire thread is nothing but 252 pages full of your own arguments from ignorance and confirmation bias. The only reason people have played along with your nonsense thus far is to make an example of you.

Plausible: “ having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible)

Congratulations. Once again, you totally ignore the point and simply copy-paste a Googled definition as a counterargument. You really don't like to put in any effort or thought at all, do you?

This is why people get so pissed off at you, Rramjet. It's why you catch so much ridicule and derision. We take the time and effort to logically consider these issues, then carefully craft our responses in the most specific way possible, and you turn around and reply with some garbage like this that doesn't even address the point I made.

I can appreciate what the skeptics are trying to do by arguing these cases with you, and some of the arguments and explanations have made interesting reading for their perspectives on the science of perception, ornithology, aircraft design, satellites, military tech (FLIR!) and the like, but I also realize there's absolutely no way this method of examination can ever bear fruit.

It can show that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.

Is that what you really see when you look back over this thread? Yourself being consistently right every time, and everyone else always being wrong?

Oh I don’t have to say anything much to elicit derision and ridicule from members of the JREF

Did you ever stop for a moment to consider why that might be?

I mean really stop and think about it?

Like, go back and reread these threads, try to look at these conversations from a different perspective, and consider what the others are telling you?

 

[Paul2]

I do not do that – the case itself (whichever that may be at the time of discussion) defies (resists) plausible mundane explanations. That is despite the best efforts of analysts, researchers, etc the case resists plausible mundane explanation (and if it does that, then I can claim it does).

You are merely re-stating your position, and I already understand what it is. I'm looking for the details of how "defy" and "deny" are or are not related, entirely separate from what your position is.

You are using those two words in a way that I don't understand, so I want you to explain them beyond just defining "defy" as "oppose or resist," because it seems to me that "defy" equates, in the end, to "deny:" a distinction without a difference. So I'm asking you to clear that up so that it doesn't look like a distinction without a difference.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.

This is another of your outright lies, Rramjet.

Did you accept HOAX as an explanation for your Delphos case after I'd shown you evidence of his other hoaxing attempts?

If nobody here is going to believe your lies and you already know they are lies, why do you tell them?

 

[Rramjet]

You're just confused now and aren't even adressing what I wrote. It's a FACT that, no matter if the report was deemed good or bad, the proportion of cases where the "object" remained unidentified was the same. But, we've been over that before and you used the same obfuscating tacticts then.

To be more specific:

Poor and doubtful reports
Unidentified objects (avg): 32.5%

Good and Excellent reports
Unidentified objects (avg): 32.95%

Source: http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p. 33.

First, as I remember it, you were at the time of that discussion erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out to you at that time that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. I cannot believe you would even dare to reintroduce it here (well actually, that’s not true, I can now believe that you would) when it is perfectly clear that such a conflation is not legitimate. The two categories are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. That is:

”INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon”(p.12)​

”UNKNOWN - This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

Furthermore, page 33 contains a figure titled “FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVER LOCATION FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR” and it has absolutely nothing to do with “unidentified” objects. You are simply making things up. Did you not think that I would check?

Here is the actual data (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24):

 

[Akhenaten]

I can't seem to identify the circle that has the actual flying saucers in it. Which one would that be, Rramjet?

 

[Rramjet]

Hey Ramjet ... a couple of questions ...

When it comes to discussing research & evidence in the field of ufology, what would you say is the biggest challenge and why do you feel it is worth pursuing.

j.r.

Good questions. I'll get back to you.

 

[Rramjet]

You are merely re-stating your position, and I already understand what it is. I'm looking for the details of how "defy" and "deny" are or are not related, entirely separate from what your position is.

You are using those two words in a way that I don't understand, so I want you to explain them beyond just defining "defy" as "oppose or resist," because it seems to me that "defy" equates, in the end, to "deny:" a distinction without a difference. So I'm asking you to clear that up so that it doesn't look like a distinction without a difference.

I have explained the difference many times now…

To contend something defies plausible mundane explanation is not the same thing as contending there is no plausible mundane explanation.

To defy means to oppose or resist.

Possibly you may be getting "defy” confused with “deny” – which latter of course means to refuse to acknowledge or recognise?

You example 1. (above) means to deny (refuse to acknowledge or recognise) plausible mundane explanations.

Your example 2. (above) means to defy (resist) plausible mundane explanations (which is of course my meaning when I state that a case defies plausible mundane explanation).

If I stated the cases I am presenting had no plausible mundane explanations I would be denying mundane explanations.

However I do not state that.

I state that the cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.

I hope that clarifies the difference for you.

...the case itself (whichever that may be at the time of discussion) defies (resists) plausible mundane explanations. That is despite the best efforts of analysts, researchers, etc the case resists plausible mundane explanation (and if it does that, then I can claim it does).

Perhaps if I put it this way then: You can resist something without denying its presence. That is, a UFO case may resist plausible mundane explanation without denying the potential for mundane explanations to exist.

 

[Rramjet]

That's not a fact, but an opinion. Whether or not something is plausible is a subjective value judgment. What one person finds plausible, another may reject as implausible.

Plausible: “having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible)

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.

Your hypothesis about "Some UFO stories defy plausible mundane explanation"…

My statement that a case defies plausible mundane explanation is not a hypothesis – it is a conclusion based on evidence.

Nevertheless, it is falsifiable. All you (or anyone) needs do is come up with a plausible mundane explanation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Plausible: “having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible)

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.

This is another of your outright lies, Rramjet.

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.

This is another of your outright lies, Rramjet.

Did you accept HOAX as an explanation for your Delphos case after I'd shown you evidence of his other hoaxing attempts?

If nobody here is going to believe your lies and you already know they are lies, why do you tell them?

My statement that a case defies plausible mundane explanation is not a hypothesis – it is a conclusion based on evidence.

It is an evidence free assertion and can be dismissed.

Nevertheless, it is falsifiable. All you (or anyone) needs do is come up with a plausible mundane explanation.

This is your pseudoscience in action, Rramjet. It isn't falsifiable. The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

That is the correct null hypothesis. Even with your pseudoscience blinders on, can you see why that one is correct? If not, why not?

 

[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 different objective causes not attributed to known objects by the initial investigation. There's still no evidence that the reports are inexplicable, only unexplained.

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/Unident...cation_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 hoaxes 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.

So the summary of the very report you cited to defend your position pretty much demolishes your contention that any UFO cases defy mundane explanation. Nice job there, ruining the entirety of your own argument!

 

[Rramjet]

Re the process of elimination:

…I also realize there's absolutely no way this method of examination can ever bear fruit.

It can show that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation.

(Bolding added. Rr)

Is that what you really see when you look back over this thread? Yourself being consistently right every time, and everyone else always being wrong?

Which of course makes your following statement below particularly apt in the circumstance:

Wow. "Confirmation bias." Incredible.

 

[Access Denied]

What “only”?

Only ~4,000 UFO reports from 1947 to 1952.

Factsheets : Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=188

From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated Dec. 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified."​

You’ve got another 17 years and another ~8,000 reports to look at before you can decide the Battelle study data was representative of the UFO phenomenon in general or perhaps included a large statistical anomaly that could have unduly biased the results, specifically the 1952 “flap” that caused widespread panic and a massive increase in reported sightings.

At the very least the study should be considered naïve.

Now that “rejected as non-factual” is more than misleading – it is an outright lie.

In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800 reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner. Most of these reports were rejected because they were extremely nebulous; the rest were rejected because they contained highly conflicting statements. [p. 11]​

Now who’s the “liar” here?

Yes, 21.5% UNKOWNS! … and this is a section of Blue Book data - which the Air Force said contained only 5% UNKNOWNS!

OMG! After throwing out ~15% of the total data…

What “panic”?

Do some research and read your own quotes from your “rebuttal”…

Three principal sources of reports were noted in the preliminary review of the data. The bulk of the data arrived at ATIC through regular military channels, from June, 1947, until the middle of 1952.

A second type of data consisted of letters reporting sightings sent by civilian observers directly to ATIC. Most of these direct communications were dated subsequent to April 30, 1952, and are believed to be the result of a suggestion by a popular magazine that future reports be directed to the Air Technical Intelligence Center. As could be expected, a large number of letters was received following this publicity. [p. 3]​

Clearly, far from attempting to clarify and inform, you have been attempting to obfuscate and mislead. There is a name for people who do this - but I will leave it to others to make up their own minds.

Project much?


ETA:

If you were being honest you would have stated that it was 3.23% (71/2199x100/1).

So I trust you will be reporting this figure from now on instead of 30% without context?

[although to be totally honest you should be reporting the ~1.8% figure in full context]

 

[Paul2]

Perhaps if I put it this way then: You can resist something without denying its presence. That is, a UFO case may resist plausible mundane explanation without denying the potential for mundane explanations to exist.

So a case might not be consistent with some plausible mundane explanations, but there still might be a mundane explanation out there that would work.

So "resist" means to deny only some mundane explanations. That's what it boils down to, right?

 

[John Albert]

Plausible: “having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible)

I will accept any explanation that fits that criteria.


My statement that a case defies plausible mundane explanation is not a hypothesis – it is a conclusion based on evidence.

Nevertheless, it is falsifiable. All you (or anyone) needs do is come up with a plausible mundane explanation.

↑​

These are all bald-faced lies.

All 250+ pages of this thread are documented evidence that you will fight tooth-and-nail as if your life depended on it, employing all manner of dishonest and obtuse reasoning, to defy any mundane explanations for any and all UFO reports you submit for examination. You have repeatedly shown that you have no intention whatsoever of accepting any mundane explanation as "plausible."

That is why your primary hypothesis (which you refuse to even admit is an hypothesis) is unfalsifiable. Your "conclusions" are based entirely on your own subjective opinions regarding some stories you read on the Internet, nothing more. None of this is founded on any objective, measured or logical evaluation of any evidence. Stories are not evidence, opinions aren't facts, and all your goofy undulations have revealed nothing but the extent of your own irrational bias.

What you are doing is pretending to knowledge you do not possess. Your fake approach to research is pseudoscience. You argue nonsense, abuse the common language to obscure meaningful dialogue, and pretend to expertise in matters you don't have the slightest clue about. In this thread you have debated professional scientists about best practices of the scientific method, you have argued against astronomers on topics regarding astronomy, you've debated computer graphics professionals about computer graphics technology, you've debated ornithologists on the subject of the migratory patterns of birds. You have consistently demonstrated not only a shocking lack of humility or deference to anyone's authority or expertise, but also a humiliating ignorance of many, many things, not the least being the fundamentals of logic, reason, critical thinking and worst of all, honesty.

And you wonder why you suffer so much contempt and mockery in this community.

 

[Jocce]

First, as I remember it, you were at the time of that discussion erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out to you at that time that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. I cannot believe you would even dare to reintroduce it here (well actually, that’s not true, I can now believe that you would) when it is perfectly clear that such a conflation is not legitimate. The two categories are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. That is:

In both cases the "object" is unidentified. The point where anyone can say "this is sufficient information" is quite arbitrary set since obviously, if there was enough information, the objects would have been identified as mundane or "alien". It's a quite valid conclusion I am drawing when looking at the data.

Furthermore, page 33 contains a figure titled “FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVER LOCATION FOR ALL YEARS AND EACH YEAR” and it has absolutely nothing to do with “unidentified” objects. You are simply making things up. Did you not think that I would check?

I was looking at the page counter in Acrobat Reader and it says 33 on the page where the original has number 24. Sorry if that confused you but you should really have been able to figure it out yourself.

Here is the actual data (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24)

Well look at that. You figured it out so then I assume that you were just looking to obfuscate this further by insinuating that I am lying about this. That tactic hasn't worked for you in 252 pages. What makes you think it'd work now?

Poor and doubtful reports
Unidentified objects (avg): 32.5%

Good and Excellent reports
Unidentified objects (avg): 32.95%

 

[RoboTimbo]

Re the process of elimination:

It has eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations.

Unless you've thought of one to falsify the null hypothesis? No?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You've failed to address this, Rramjet.

So it isn't that you can't think of any mundane explanations. You also can't think of any plausible non-mundane explanations. You really can't think of any explanations at all then. Is that what you're saying?

You're just stressing your ignorance of mundane explanations so that you can arrive at your pseudoscientific pre-conceived conclusion of pseudoaliens.

Now I understand your motivation.

Is it true that you can't think of any plausible non-mundane explanations?

 

[Rramjet]

They're not ignoring the results.

”…mirror graphs had been constructed from the frequency tabulations which seemed to show that, -when the KNOWNS (total less UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS were grouped according to one of six characteristics, the percentage of KNOWNS and the percentage of UNKNOWNS in each characteristic group showed the same general trend. In other words, on the basis of these graphs, it looked as though there was a good possibility that the UNKNOWNS were no different from the KNOWNS, at least in the aggregate.. It was decided to investigate this by the use of a statistical procedure called the "Chi Square Test".

The Chi Square Test is a statistical test of the likelihood that two distributions come from the same population, that is, it gives the probability that there is no difference in the make-up of the two distributions being measured.” (pp. 60-61 bolding added Rr)​

The subsequent Chi-square analyses then showed a significant result – ie; indicating that the stated hypothesis that the likelihood that the two distributions came from the same population was falsified.

The authors then concluded:

”The results of these tests are inconclusive… (p.76)​

Yet the Chi-square analyses showed positive results! The hypothesis was falsified! Now that IS “ignoring the results”! And it most certainly is not scientific to ignore the results of your own analyses…

Re the of prevalence of “hoax” reports being cited as between 1-2%

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)​

Therefore the next question becomes, to what degree do hoaxes impact these studies, and how do you determine that?

(…)

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.

I suspect they simply cited the percentage of explained reports that had been explained as hoaxes. If that is not a reliable method of determining how many (what percentage of) reports have been explained as hoaxes, I don’t know what would be…

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.

I merely pointed out that your claim of “dubious” in relation to the scientific data is your claim - and in consideration of that it is your burden of proof to support that claim with evidence and/or logical argument.

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.” (p.13 http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) (formatting, page number and reference inserted Rr)​

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!

Nope, it is not. You have simply not read the report carefully enough. The section you cite above is concerned with inter-rater reliability. That is they used independent raters to assess a report’s categorisation and only if the two assessors agreed was it allowed to be categorised. Now that is sound scientific methodology (and I might add at a higher level than many so called scientific studies achieve).

As for reliability:

”The second step in evaluation, the rating of the observer and his report, logically followed from the first step, the reduction of the data to usable form …

(where they conducted and instituted a number of quality controls as outlined on pages 3-6. Rr)

… Ratings were assigned on the basis of the following factors of information, considered in relation to one another:

(1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his occupation, age, and training.
(2) The consistency among the separate portions of the description of the sighting
(3) The general quality and completeness of the report
(4) Consideration of the observer’s fact reporting ability and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing the sighting” (p.11)​

So the summary of the very report you cited to defend your position pretty much demolishes your contention that any UFO cases defy mundane explanation. Nice job there, ruining the entirety of your own argument!

(Shrugs) I didn’t cite the summary. I have merely pointed to the data and the analyses of that data and the results of those analyses. So the report’s authors ignored the data in the report. What’s new? Condon did the same. It is par for the course.

 

[Rramjet]

First, as I remember it, you were at the time of that discussion erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out to you at that time that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. I cannot believe you would even dare to reintroduce it here (well actually, that’s not true, I can now believe that you would) when it is perfectly clear that such a conflation is not legitimate. The two categories are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. That is:

”INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon”(p.12)​

”UNKNOWN - This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

In both cases the "object" is unidentified. The point where anyone can say "this is sufficient information" is quite arbitrary set since obviously, if there was enough information, the objects would have been identified as mundane or "alien". It's a quite valid conclusion I am drawing when looking at the data.

Humbug. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION means that there is not enough information to categorise the report as either KNOWN or UNKNOWN.

And what is this fixation of yours (and the other UFO debunkers) with the necessity of ET? It is not a logical conclusion that UNKOWN = ET. It does not follow at all.

…so then I assume that you were just looking to obfuscate this further by insinuating that I am lying about this. That tactic hasn't worked for you in 252 pages. What makes you think it'd work now?

(Shrugs) Not at all, just pointing out the demonstrable fact that you are deliberately obfuscating and misleading is all. People can make up their own minds.

Here is the actual data (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24):