UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

No, the people "in the know" know it's Slim Whitman.

Top sekret USG video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MhgnMX73Pw

Ohh, my mistake, thanks.

Ufology,
What is the progress on the null hypothesis?

 

[ufology]

One clarification:

My emphasis (bolding).
Accept some cases as what, exactly? Hoaxes or not hoaxes? Or accept some cases as what? I'm just not clear what you meant your words to imply.

Hi Paul ...

I would say you could look at it either way depending on what seems reasonable. For example, in the early days of the investigations, the USAF enlisted the FBI to assist with such things as background checks. If what they found was a report by a known prankster, and there was little other information or corroboration, then I would think they would have found it more reasonable to consider the incident to have been hoax, even without proof. At least I know that I would were I in that position.

I don't have an example of the above readily available, but in my reviews of the way they screened reports, it was apparent that the bias was against improbabble and fantastic explanations. This is evidenced by the screening process and the definition provided in which mere causal factors such as contrails and lights and other things indicative of aircraft meant that the report was to be classed as an aircraft ... even if there was no other information to verify the object itself was actually an aircraft. Similarly I would think that factors indicative of a hoax, even without having proved it was a hoax, would have led them to class the report as a hoax or insufficient information.

Only when there seemed to be reasonable reasons for classing an object as "unknown" was it supposed to be done. Taking into account the bias above, it is reasonable to believe that some truly strange ( non-mundane ) objects were in fact involved in a number of incidents.

 

[Toke]

Only when there seemed to be reasonable reasons for classing an object as "unknown" was it supposed to be done. Taking into account the bias above, it is reasonable to believe that some truly strange ( non-mundane ) objects were in fact involved in a number of incidents.

You have a point there, it is clearly a case of christian prejudice against older religions that have gotten Thor and his chariot or one or more of the Valkyries, completely written off in the reports.

Or do you have another null hypothesis?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul ...

It's not exactly what I was saying, but I still have no problem with what you interpret what I said to mean in general terms.

The point I was trying to make is that what constitutes a hoax is highly dependent on the context of the situation, and that within certain contexts as described, hoaxes can be ruled out. Admittedly the examples I gave are mostly academic, but since we had no context to work with, they are still fair, and it is always good to understand the various contexts in which things are perceived. Now please try to bear with me before hitting the edit button because this is all leading somewhere constructive ( I hope ) toward the end.

Interesting. You think a UFO sighting may be a hoax or not depending on the context, not on whether someone was hoaxing.

Returning to the topic of UFO reports prior to screening under the official definition. Prior to screening, the object in the report may or may not fall under the definition of a UFO. If the report makes it past the screening process, it was judged to have enough information to rule out the mundane objects in the list, and therefore at that point becomes a UFO as per the official definition, and consequently was not considered to be a mundane object.

So you are stating the obvious that IFOs are not UFOs. Um, ok. Then you are stating that UFOs are all non-mundane. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

This didn't mean that further investigation might not still reveal it to be a mundane object, but it is at that point when we look at the definition and compare it to the null hypothesis proposed earlier ( All UFO sightings are of mundane origin ) they don't match up.

And now you've saying that the non-mundane UFOs may turn out to be mundane. What exactly does that mean "they don't match up"? Has the proper scientific null hypothesis been falsified or not?

That is why I proposed the revised null hypothesis for those who prefer to see the issue in those terms ... again:

The objects in pre-screened UFO reports ( those reports that had not been screened prior to being passed onto the ATIC investigators ) are mundane objects.

LOL. That isn't a null hypothesis! You don't really understand what a null hypothesis is, do you? Anyway, the null hypothesis remains:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and then you try to falsify that with actual evidence. Do you see now that what you are engaging in is pseudoscience?

Now AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, did not include hoaxes in the list. It was assumed that USAF pilots weren't hoaxing what they saw. It was also assumed by then that most reports were not hoaxes because past investigations had found very low incidents of proven hoaxes. Certainly hoaxes might still be found during a post-screening investigation, but unless the report itself provides sufficient information to show it was a hoax, the presumption ( naturally for an official agaency ) is to presume it's not and to investigate it.

Which raises an important question: "It seems as if you are saying that any UFO sighting that hasn't been proven to have a mundane explanation is, by default, an alien spaceship. If that isn't the case, please clarify."

Now it might seem illogical to presume that sighting reports are not hoaxes and to investigate them, but that is the job of the military, to investigate possible incidents that are covered by their mandates. Similarly, when you call a police station for help, they don't ask for proof it's not a hoax before responding ( or we would hope ), because people's lives and property could be in danger and it is their job to investigate it "without prejudice".

Have any turned out to be alien invaders and a threat to national security? Or did the USAF, whose definition of the term UFO you've been using, that they were not a threat to national security?

In this context I could see how your point regarding hoaxes could contribute to some unexplained cases falling through the cracks into the percentage of "unknowns". Technically I think you may also be suggesting that there is no way in the absence of proof to know exactly hown many have fallen through the cracks, only that given the information, it's more or less reasonable to accept some cases more than others. And this point I would conceed is reasonable. However I would not conceed that it means that every unknown sighting can reasonably be explained to have been a hoax.

Then you really don't see his point. Do you concede that there may be other mundane explanations which haven't been uncovered for some of the sightings?

Are we on the same page now? If not, by all means let's continue until we have it nailed down. And by the way thank you for your very civil participation. I look forward to your next response.

I would thank you for yours but you scurry away from answering questions.

 

[ufology]

Then you really don't see his point. Do you concede that there may be other mundane explanations which haven't been uncovered for some of the sightings?

Timbo ... I would have to say yes, that is entirely possible.

 

[Paul2]

I would say you could look at it either way depending on what seems reasonable.

I don't get this. The context was:

Technically I think you may also be suggesting that there is no way in the absence of proof to know exactly hown many have fallen through the cracks, only that given the information, it's more or less reasonable to accept some cases more than others. And this point I would conceed is reasonable.

Surely you meant that it would be "reasonable to accept some cases" as one or the other (hoax or not)? The above doesn't make sense otherwise.

I'm getting confused.

If you can help out here, great. The odds of helping are greater if you don't go into long explanations, just state clearly and simply if you meant "reasonable to accept" as a hoax, or not.

If all you're saying is that some cases may be hoaxes and some may not be, that's not the issue. The issue was whether there was some way that all hoaxes could be ruled out for a UFO. I say there isn't - if it's a UFO, the a hoax is always possible - and we don't have to rely on solipsism to do so. Hoaxes (as well as misinterpretations, misperceptions, bad memory, etc.) are always possible, in contrast to solipsistically thinking we're just in the Matrix, because we've seen cases before of misinterpretation, misperception, etc. verified very well, whereas not so much for the Matrix.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is no point to writing here.

Yet here you are.

The JREF has tried to take the stand of an Church of Inquisition. So there really is no point debating against such an institution that gives a science a really bad name.

I assume you're talking about the failing pseudoscientific UFOlogist and his pseudoscience? He doesn't give science a bad name, science laughs at those pseudoscientists.

Even though we know that science has a more advanced perception upon things than these close-minded bully people, who seem to get their happiness not from a descent debate but of their bullying behaviour that looks like discussions that we have had in the past.

Do you have an example of this? I'd like to see that it isn't misperception on your part due to the same pseudoscientific filters we've been seeing from other pseudoscientists in this thread.

One of their strategies is moving all the difficult posts in to the AAH thread, which is interesting since there are a lot of posts by the JREF standard guys that should have their remarks moved to there: for example stray cats´s beautiful pictures of ridicule. But no. This is the last place to discuss anything paranormal, since this is a cult. Even though they don´t see it themselves. Of course not. Cult members are always blind to their own system of a down.

Cult members being blind must be the reason you can't see that the pseudoscience being put forth by the UFOlogist is fallacy laden twaddle? And the reason that you can't see all the posts which have been moved to AAH? Somehow you've only been able to see ufology's and Rramjet's posts in AAH? How oddly appropriate for a cultish outlook.

It´s very weird that you only move the posts that you seem threatening to your own Abandon all hope thread. Yet, you have even in this post all the ridiculous posts by Stray Cats etc. in this thread. The moderators are obviously not neutral. This whole community is not also the mouth of science. I hope so.

It would seem weird if it were to really be the case. Forutnately for rationally minded people, it isn't.

Hey, could you get ufology to answer the questions he's been running away from?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo ... I would have to say yes, that is entirely possible.

Which ones aren't?

 

[ufology]

I don't get this. The context was: Surely you meant that it would be "reasonable to accept some cases" as one or the other (hoax or not)? The above doesn't make sense otherwise.

I'm getting confused.

If you can help out here, great. The odds of helping are greater if you don't go into long explanations, just state clearly and simply if you meant "reasonable to accept" as a hoax, or not.

If all you're saying is that some cases may be hoaxes and some may not be, that's not the issue. The issue was whether there was some way that all hoaxes could be ruled out for a UFO. I say there isn't - if it's a UFO, the a hoax is always possible - and we don't have to rely on solipsism to do so. Hoaxes (as well as misinterpretations, misperceptions, bad memory, etc.) are always possible, in contrast to solipsistically thinking we're just in the Matrix, because we've seen cases before of misinterpretation, misperception, etc. verified very well, whereas not so much for the Matrix.

In the context of the quote you provided, when I had written it, I had meant that it is reasonable to believe that some hoaxes may have fallen through the cracks into the "unknown" category.

I just wanted to make the point in addition to that, that it's also just as reasonable to accept that most unknown cases were not the result of hoaxes.

 

[ufology]

Which ones aren't?

It's reasonable to believe that most aren't, but I've already conceeded to not having empirical scientific proof they aren't. So if that's where you're going, we've already been there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's reasonable to believe that most aren't, but I've already conceeded to not having empirical scientific proof they aren't. So if that's where you're going, we've already been there.

Keep that context in mind when you answer this question then:

How do you tell the difference between the UFOs which are mundane and the ones which aren't mundane?

 

[ufology]

Keep that context in mind when you answer this question then:

How do you tell the difference between the UFOs which are mundane and the ones which aren't mundane?

Timbo ... So far as we know, there is no empirical physical scientific evidence from which to make such a dilineation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo ... So far as we know, there is no empirical physical scientific evidence from which to make such a dilineation.

Then so far as we know, there is no empirical physical scientific evidence for UFOs as alien spaceships.

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

I look forward to the day when the null hypothesis is falsified.

 

[ufology]

Then so far as we know, there is no empirical physical scientific evidence for UFOs as alien spaceships.

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"


I look forward to the day when the null hypothesis is falsified.

Timbo ...

I think we need a few hard-liners out there like yourself, and I conceed that it could be true that no UFOs reported so far were alien craft. However let me ask you this: Although you default to your null hypothesis, do you also acknowledge that some UFO reports could have been alien craft and there simply isn't enough evidence to prove it to your satisfaction?

 

[Stray Cat]

do you also acknowledge that some UFO reports could have been alien craft and there simply isn't enough evidence to prove it to your satisfaction?

"Unidentified" (as in Unidentified Flying Object) doesn't rule aliens out.

However, 'Evidence' makes it very unlikely.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo ...

I think we need a few hard-liners out there like yourself, and I conceed that it could be true that no UFOs reported so far were alien craft. However let me ask you this: Although you default to you null hypothesis, do you also acknowledge that some UFO reports could have been alien craft and there simply isn't enough evidence to prove it to your satisfaction?

Reality is to default to the null hypothesis. Of course I concede that some UFO reports could have been alien craft but there is no evidence to suggest that any of them have been, so you are correct that there isn't enough evidence (since there's none) to prove it to anyone's satisfaction. But why do you limit it to alien visitation and not Santa Claus or fairies or leprechauns or dragons or god(s) or any of a number of non-mundane explanations? None have ever been shown to be aliens so why do UFOlogists default to aliens?

We have the null hypothesis because we already know that the mundane exists. Nobody needs to prove each UFO sighting is the result of some mundane explanation, it is just assumed. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation because we can't think of them all.

To falsify the null hypothesis only takes just one confirmed non-mundane event. Why are UFOlogists so reluctant to want that?

 

[ufology]

"Unidentified" (as in Unidentified Flying Object) doesn't rule aliens out.

However, 'Evidence' makes it very unlikely.

Stray ...

I can accept that from your point of view you find the evidence to be insuficient. But let me ask you this: Given the interest in the topic by so many people, should they not be allowed to explore the topic and form their own opinions?

 

[ufology]

Reality is to default to the null hypothesis. Of course I concede that some UFO reports could have been alien craft but there is no evidence to suggest that any of them have been, so you are correct that there isn't enough evidence (since there's none) to prove it to anyone's satisfaction. But why do you limit it to alien visitation and not Santa Claus or fairies or leprechauns or dragons or god(s) or any of a number of non-mundane explanations? None have ever been shown to be aliens so why do UFOlogists default to aliens?

We have the null hypothesis because we already know that the mundane exists. Nobody needs to prove each UFO sighting is the result of some mundane explanation, it is just assumed. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation because we can't think of them all.

To falsify the null hypothesis only takes just one confirmed non-mundane event. Why are UFOlogists so reluctant to want that?

Leaving the issue of evidence out of the mix for a moment. I'd like to ask you the same question as I asked Stray: Given all the interest in the subject by so many people, should they not have the freedom to explore the topic and come to their own decisions just as you have?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Leaving the issue of evidence out of the mix for a moment. I'd like to ask you the same question as I asked Stray: given all the interest in the subject by so many people, should they not have the freedom to explore the topic and come to their own decisions just as you have?

Regardless of how many people are interested in the subject, everyone is free to have an opinion. Did you think differently? Is that why you came here - to try to get skeptics to suspend critical thinking about your pet subject?

Now, let's get back to the lack of any evidence that aliens have been the cause of any UFO sightings. Are you still insisting on using the unfalsifiable pseudoscientific null hypothesis: "Some UFO sightings are the result of alien visitation"?

 

[carlitos]

More question avoiding, more name-calling , more claims of persecution ... Any evidence?