UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

(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.

Ah right, so they ignored their own data and just made up a summary conclusion off the top of their heads?

Or perhaps it's you that is misinterpreting their data and analysis whilst ignoring their conclusion. (Or more appropriately accepting what some UFOlogists have written about it).

 

[Stray Cat]

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

Therefore the outcome remains the same = It's still unknown.
But it's an unknown unknown as oppose to a known unknown.

 

[Jocce]

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…

You forgot to mention a couple of plausible mundane reasons for this result that the authors mention. The more probable one being:

The UNKNOWNS may be known objects in different proportions than the group identified as KNOWNS.(That is, a greater percentage of the UNKNOWNS could be aircraft than the percentage of aircraft in the identified KNOWN).
Source: p. 68

That is as was shown to be the case with astronomical phenomena in the revised test.

To put it in way so you can relate to it... the results of the Chi-square test does not defy plausible mundane explanations.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

A case may resist plausible mundane explanations according to the knowledge we have about the technological and natural world. That is, the case may defy (resist) any plausible mundane explanations that are consistent with that knowledge without denying the existance of potential plausible mundane explanations that a future expansion in that knowedge might provide.

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

Defy (resist) does not mean "deny". The two words are separate and distinct in meaning. I have explained that many times now. Perhaps at this point it would be expedient of you to consult a dictionary if you cannot see the distinction.

 

[Rramjet]

Therefore the outcome remains the same = It's still unknown.
But it's an unknown unknown as oppose to a known unknown.

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. 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)​

 

[Jocce]

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

The proportion of unidentified objects is the same in good and bad reports. There is no denying it. The only, quite logical, thing that happens is that more of the poor reports go in the "insufficient information" pile. No big surprise there

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.

Why are you setting up this strawman to obfuscate things? Show me where I typed ET in my post. I'm getting really fed up with that comment from you. You have done it so many times now and I've told you over and over again that whenever I use the word "alien" (with "") I mean it as per your definition. Do you have some kind of memory problem or is this just a case of selective perception?

(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.

I'm just pointing out the obvious FACT that no matter if you look at the group of bad or the group of good reports, the proportion of unidentified "objects" remain the same. You can't deny that.

 

[Rramjet]

You forgot to mention a couple of plausible mundane reasons for this result that the authors mention. The more probable one being:

The UNKNOWNS may be known objects in different proportions than the group identified as KNOWNS.(That is, a greater percentage of the UNKNOWNS could be aircraft than the percentage of aircraft in the identified KNOWN).
Source: p. 68

That is as was shown to be the case with astronomical phenomena in the revised test.

Indeed, and when those astronomical cases were removed, the result was still significant! Even more so as a category that was not significant on the first pass became significant with the removal of the data. There is no reason to suppose anything different would happen under the above scenario. That is it is just as legitimate to propose a greater significance as it is to propose a lesser one (or perhaps even more legitimate given the experience of removing the astronomical data on the same grounds). The authors are simply grasping at straws in an attempt to explain away the refutation for their own hypothesis! LOL.

 

[Jocce]

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category.

Both groups contain UNIDENTIFIED "objects" so there is nothing erroneous about it.

 

[Jocce]

Indeed, and when those astronomical cases were removed, the result was still significant! Even more so as a category that was not significant on the first pass became significant with the removal of the data. There is no reason to suppose anything different would happen under the above scenario. That is it is just as legitimate to propose a greater significance as it is to propose a lesser one (or perhaps even more legitimate given the experience of removing the astronomical data on the same grounds). The authors are simply grasping at straws in an attempt to explain away the refutation for their own hypothesis! LOL.

Aww, so blinded by faith you are. There exist plausible mundane explanations. No rational mind would deny it. An irrational one, blinded by belief on the other hand....

 

[Paul2]

Defy (resist) does not mean "deny".

Yes, you're quite right, except that the way you are using them, you're making "defy" mean "deny" in some but not all cases. You didn't read, apparently, my "boils down to" post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7453405#post7453405.

I hope you do not merely repeat that the dictionary says that the two terms are different. My point is that, the way you are using them, you mean one to the be other for some but not all cases. Which is why I was confused as to what you meant by the words.

Semantic issues like this have diminishing returns, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

 

[Rramjet]

The proportion of unidentified objects is the same in good and bad reports. There is no denying it. The only, quite logical, thing that happens is that more of the poor reports go in the "insufficient information" pile. No big surprise there

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. 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)​

Why are you setting up this strawman to obfuscate things? Show me where I typed ET in my post. I'm getting really fed up with that comment from you. You have done it so many times now and I've told you over and over again that whenever I use the word "alien" (with "") I mean it as per your definition. Do you have some kind of memory problem or is this just a case of selective perception?

If you are using the term “alien” as per my definition, then you are using it incorrectly. The term “alien” as I meant it simply meant “foreign” (to out understanding of the natural and technological world). That meaning simply does not fit with the term as you used it in your sentence – whereas “alien” meaning ET does. But of course you know that and are once again attempting to be deliberately obfuscating and misleading.

I'm just pointing out the obvious FACT that no matter if you look at the group of bad or the group of good reports, the proportion of unidentified "objects" remain the same. You can't deny that.

I can, I do, and I did (see above).

 

[Rramjet]

Both groups contain UNIDENTIFIED "objects" so there is nothing erroneous about it.

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. 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)​

 

[Rramjet]

I hope you do not merely repeat that the dictionary says that the two terms are different. My point is that, the way you are using them, you mean one to the be other for some but not all cases. Which is why I was confused as to what you meant by the words.

I am sorry but I have explained this ad nauseum and so obviously you are going to then remain confused about the distinction between "defy" and "deny" and why I use the term defy and not deny.

 

[GeeMack]

”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)​

So the ones in the "INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION" category, was the identity of those known? Could the description of those objects and their maneuvers be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon?

(You'll notice by asking this as a simple yes/no type question, I'm providing an opportunity for any "ufologist" to offer another dishonest argument, to give us another argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, or another argument by dishonestly redefining terms. A pseudo-scientist would take full advantage of that opportunity to bat around a couple more lies and logical fallacies. An honest, objective person would just answer the question.)

 

[Paul2]

I am sorry but I have explained this ad nauseum and so obviously you are going to then remain confused about the distinction between "defy" and "deny" and why I use the term defy and not deny.

We're done with this one.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How can reports with Insufficient information (9 in the Excellent report category and 27 in the good report category) be classified as Excellent or Good? Wouldn't they belong in the "poor" pile? If they were excellent reports, one would think that there would be enough information to make a call on it. It demonstrates the subjective nature of the classification system.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So the ones in the "INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION" category, was the identity of those known? Could the description of those objects and their maneuvers be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon?

(You'll notice by asking this as a simple yes/no type question, I'm providing an opportunity for any "ufologist" to offer another dishonest argument, to give us another argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, or another argument by dishonestly redefining terms. A pseudo-scientist would take full advantage of that opportunity to bat around a couple more lies and logical fallacies. An honest, objective person would just answer the question.)

Rramjet is hoping that Unknown means "positively defies plausible mundane explanation."

Unfortunately for him, Campeche, Delphos, and the blimp at Rogue River would all fit in the Unknown category, thus falsifying his pseudoscientific "hypthesis". That's why he's telling us to not mind the man behind the curtain.

Rramjet, why don't you put your "hypothesis" in scare quotes since it's a pseudoscientific one and not a real one?

 

[carlitos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_barren_Goose.png

That red area in the map above includes Cape Otway and happens to be the habitat for Cape Barren geese, a big old bird with a wingspan of almost 2 meters, known to fly in small flocks, especially outside of the breeding season of July - September. So, that's kind of a known-to-exist thing.

This red area below is ... well, lie is a pretty strong word.

It was nearly midnight. The sun was on the opposite side of the world. Given the radius of the earth is about 6400km then from where we were the minimum distance possible to reflect sunlight (given an angle of 70 degrees) is more than 19,000km from our position and 18,000km above the earth… surely not possible, so actually, come to think of it, these things must have been self-illuminated! (wow, never crossed my mind before - I’ll have to work it out properly!) …but there were no geese. No geese live in the area and none migrate over the area. Never have and never will. 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.

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.

Yup.

The only thing I'd like to add at this point is that lies, confabulations and hoaxes are not the only "non-objects" mistaken for UFOs. Lights in the night sky could just be ... lights. Reflections, whatever. Pretending that lights are always "objects" is silly, which really calls into question the acronym "UFO" itself, when you think about it. In the King of the Americas' explanation of his anecdote, he pretty much described cop lights at one point, but they confabulated into cigar-shaped "craft" and what-not. Not very scientific.

 

[Marduk]

watch out Roger
youre being usurped
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=25848

 

[Jocce]

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category.

It has been pointed out to you several times that both categories contain UNIDENTIFIED objects so there is nothing erroneous about it. Your baseless opinion to the contrary can be, and is, dismissed.

If you are using the term “alien” as per my definition, then you are using it incorrectly. The term “alien” as I meant it simply meant “foreign” (to out understanding of the natural and technological world). That meaning simply does not fit with the term as you used it in your sentence – whereas “alien” meaning ET does. But of course you know that and are once again attempting to be deliberately obfuscating and misleading.

My usage of "alien" was perfectly clear and valid. You're once again arguing in a way that leads me to believe you have some kind of reading- or comprehension disability. Either that or you are just trying to divert attention from the irrefutable fact that the proportion of unidentified objects is the same in good and bad reports.

I can, I do, and I did (see above).

Irrational.