UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

If I'm wrong perhaps the poster can tell me what parts of the subject aren't nonsense?

Or perhaps you could learn to quote properly.

 

[23_Tauri]

I got it from this post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7543196&postcount=11627


To Quote: "If you are a serious researcher into any subject, you won't give any credence or endorsement to nonsense written about that subject. And yet, here you are advocating that nonsense should be available to your audience and then some of the nonsense could be countered by the views of fair minded sceptics ... This is where the null hypothesis "all UFO's are mundane in origin" saves a lot of time ..."

The poster who wrote the above obviously thinks it's all "nonsense" and suggests defaulting to the position that all UFOs are mundane in origin.
If I'm wrong perhaps the poster can tell me what parts of the subject aren't nonsense?

Anyone who understands the importance of a null hypothesis will return to it as the default position. As John Albert has already explained to you, that's what a null hypothesis is for!!

Is there a "throwing in the towel" emoticon on here?

 

[ufology]

You don't seem to get it. The 'U' in UFO is nothing more than insufficient data. Unidentified doesn't mean ET, Valee's "djinn," or name your notion. How can you properly investigate something that is no longer there?

What passes for ufological investigation is primarily confirmation bias and is predicated on the mistaken notion that there is some kind of global interconnectedness with UFO reports when the only real commonality is the letter U. Take a gander at a couple UFO databases out there and see if folks are looking at the same object(s).

I find it amusing when I ask a "believer" what planet their "UFOs" come from because in their answer (or more accurately, their non-answer) lies the key to their flawed reasoning.

The poster above continues the misleading habit of misrepresenting the actual definition of UFO. So again I refer to AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958 in which the people who created the word UFO define it as follows:

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:

a. Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).

b. Unknown Aircraft:

(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.

(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.

(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.
​

c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.



So obviously UFOs aren't simply anything including:

• Any familiar or known object such as aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies etc.
• Unknown aircraft that fit the general description of aircraft
• Pilotless aircraft or missiles

They also don't conform to the performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or features of known aircraft or missiles.

So what's left? Paul suggested hoaxes. However it does not seem reasonable to propose hoaxes for every UFO case ... ( The radar/visual USAF jet pursuit from the Washington National Sightings as an example ) so then what ... clearly we are we are dealing with something alien ( to our civilization ). Where it came from I don't know ( I didn't say it was ET ).

What say the skeptics? I presume they think it was a mundane object ... as if glowing blue-white spheres of light that outrun USAF interceptors are "mundane". But where's the proof they say? To that I say go look it up. The radar/visual pursuit is documented.

 

[Toke]

A round we go again.

Ufology,
How about we take one thing at a time, like having you read up on the concept of a "Null Hypothesis" and then come back and explain it in your own words.

(You know, it is one of those trade language things with a very specific meaning.)

 

[Akhenaten]

The poster above continues the misleading habit of misrepresenting the actual definition of UFO.

The poster above continues to insist that the rest of the world must adopt the same redefined meaning of an extremely common word that he has in order that his vapid arguments aquire at least the appearance of validity but seems completely unable to understand that not only will this never happen but that his repeated attempts to do so are but one of many reasons that he finds himself dealing with an increasingly unsympathetic group of interlocuters.

 

[ufology]

Anyone who understands the importance of a null hypothesis will return to it as the default position. As John Albert has already explained to you, that's what a null hypothesis is for!!

Is there a "throwing in the towel" emoticon on here?

Tauri ... sure, but your comment is made out of context. I had proposed that skeptics make their views known about certain cases I run across for the benefit of my readers. Stray's response, to paraphrase, was that it's all nonsense and to just default to the null hypothesis, and that prompted me to say, "OK I'll just write that the skeptics just think it's all nonsense and all UFOs are of mundane origin". Which prompted the comment, "Where do you get this stuff?" So I provided the link to Stray's comment, and then you just fell off the rails here and started yelling with that confused look.

 

[Akhenaten]

I had proposed that skeptics make their views known about certain cases I run across for the benefit of my readers.

Rather than risk missing something during transcription that your readers might need to know, why not just post a link to this thread on your site?

Much more efficient.

 

[ufology]

The poster above continues to insist that the rest of the world must adopt the same redefined meaning of an extremely common word that he has in order that his vapid arguments aquire at least the appearance of validity but seems completely unable to understand that not only will this never happen but that his repeated attempts to do so are but one of many reasons that he finds himself dealing with an increasingly unsympathetic group of interlocuters.

The poster above refuses to accept that the definition of the word UFO by the people who created the word in the first place is not a "redefinition" but an actual part of USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 and was used for officially screening UFO reports. This stubborn behavior to accept a well documented and proven fact only demonstrates how deeply engrained the skeptical bias is.

 

[Toke]

It is right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

[EHocking]

The poster above refuses to accept that the definition of the word UFO by the people who created the word in the first place is not a "redefinition" but an actual part of USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 and was used for officially screening UFO reports. This stubborn behavior to accept a well documented and proven fact only demonstrates how deeply engrained the skeptical bias is.

This is so disingenous of you.

Here is the definition of UFO that YOU use on YOUR site.
Note the bolded part.

A New Definition
The semantics problem poses a serious challenge for those who want a well formed acronym. Perhaps best way to resolve it is to simply retain the word UFO and accept that it is time to evolve its definition away from classical USAF definitions that define UFOs by what they aren't, and move toward defining them as what we think they are..
​

You've been bleating on for days about the USAF definition of UFO being the definitive version and how "we" sceptics have been ignoring or avoiding it for our own nefarious reasons.

Yet every other poster here is very aware of you ACTUAL wish for accepting UFO=Alien Craft.

To continue to argue otherwise is dishonest of you.

 

[Akhenaten]

The poster above refuses to accept that the definition of the word UFO by the people who created the word in the first place is not a "redefinition" but an actual part of USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 and was used for officially screening UFO reports.

If only the people you're trying to communicate with were all members of the USAF UFO report screening team that had somehow or other been transported from 1958 to 2011 rather than contemporary, English-speaking civilians you'd be lookin' good.

As it is, your arguments are looking more and more frantic with every post.

This stubborn behavior to accept a well documented and proven fact only demonstrates how deeply engrained the skeptical bias is.

I ain't no steenkin' skeptic and YOU are the one attempting to use non-standard definitions of words.

Are you really unable to see that USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 is not the source that your readership uses to establish the meaning of the words that it uses?

 

[Resume]

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible,

That's because it is fallible. Which has been demonstrated to you through countless links by patient posters since you turned up in this biotch.


One more time: an anecdote is a claim which may require corroborating evidence depending on the claimed phenomenon.

"I had a fish sammich today." Fine

"I had a fish sammich on alien starship today." Whoa, back up a little Sparky.

Get it?

 

[ufology]

This is so disingenous of you.

Here is the definition of UFO that YOU use on YOUR site.
Note the bolded part.

A New Definition
The semantics problem poses a serious challenge for those who want a well formed acronym. Perhaps best way to resolve it is to simply retain the word UFO and accept that it is time to evolve its definition away from classical USAF definitions that define UFOs by what they aren't, and move toward defining them as what we think they are..
​

You've been bleating on for days about the USAF definition of UFO being the definitive version and how "we" sceptics have been ignoring or avoiding it for our own nefarious reasons.

Yet every other poster here is very aware of you ACTUAL wish for accepting UFO=Alien Craft.

To continue to argue otherwise is dishonest of you.

I suggest that viewers read the entire article in its proper context. So far as I am concerned, the official USAF definition is nothing more than a way of saying the same thing as the proposed new definition without actually having to use the word "alien". After all, the word UFO was created to replace the phrase "flying saucer", which was presumed to be an alien craft anyway. That makes the word UFO nothing more than a euphmism that better served the USAF P.R. campaign. Furthermore the use of the word "alien" as I have previously stated does not necessitate an extraterrestrial origin, only something foreign to human civilization. Where they actually come from I don't know.

So there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous in what I've said. My proposed new definiton is based on the existing official definition ( which is still a proven fact ), and which still makes all the skeptics who claim UFOs could be anything at all simply because of the word "unidentified" the ones who are truly either misinformed or disingenuous.

 

[Resume]

So there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous in what I've said. My proposed new definiton is based on the existing official definition ( which is still a proven fact ), and which still makes all the skeptics who claim UFOs could be anything at all simply because of the word "unidentified" the ones who are truly either misinformed or disingenuous.

Your "new" definition is based on what best suits your material needs, what best affirms your lifelong delusion and what is best suited to pimp your website.

U nidentified F lying O bject. Simple.

 

[Akhenaten]

I suggest that viewers read the entire article in its proper context.

<snip special pleading begging>

I suggest you grasp some of these.

The ones you've got hold of at the moment aren't working.

 

[ufology]

If only the people you're trying to communicate with were all members of the USAF UFO report screening team that had somehow or other been transported from 1958 to 2011 rather than contemporary, English-speaking civilians you'd be lookin' good.

As it is, your arguments are looking more and more frantic with every post.

I ain't no steenkin' skeptic and YOU are the one attempting to use non-standard definitions of words.

Are you really unable to see that USAF Air Force Regulation 200-2 Feb 05 1958 is not the source that your readership uses to establish the meaning of the words that it uses?

So the poster above doesn't consider himself to be a "steenkin' skeptic"? How interesting. What is he then? The resident heckler?

The point of referencing the official definition of UFO by the people who created it is to alert those who misrepresent the word UFO as possibly being anything simply because the initialism used the word "unidentified". Granted, the definition is long and clumsy, but it makes the point that UFOs are by definition not mundane objects, and using it casually as if they are is not correct.

For example it is not correct to say, "I saw a UFO", if what you saw was simply some lights flying overhead. "It would be correct to say I saw some unidentified lights flying overhead." However as portrayed in the video that kicked this all off, it is common to see some skeptic say something like, "When somebody says they saw a UFO, what does that mean? It means they saw something unidentified. In other words they don't know what it was, so it could have been anything." Such portrayals misrepresent the UFO phenomenon and misinform the public. Furthermore, many skeptics must know they are doing it. Certainly the skeptics ( and anyone else ) here should now know better.

 

[Resume]

So the poster above doesn't consider himself to be a "steenkin' skeptic"? How interesting. What is he then? The resident heckler?

The point of referencing the official definition of UFO by the people who created it is to alert those who misrepresent the word UFO as possibly being anything simply because the initialism used the word "unidentified". Granted, the definition is long and clumsy, but it makes the point that UFOs are by definition not mundane objects, and using it casually as if they are is not correct.

For example it is not correct to say, "I saw a UFO", if what you saw was simply some lights flying overhead. "It would be correct to say I saw some unidentified lights flying overhead." However as portrayed in the video that kicked this all off, it is common to see some skeptic say something like, "When somebody says they saw a UFO, what does that mean? It means they saw something unidentified. In other words they don't know what it was, so it could have been anything." Such portrayals misrepresent the UFO phenomenon and misinform the public. Furthermore, many skeptics must know they are doing it. Certainly the skeptics ( and anyone else ) here should now know better.

A flying light is a flying object. For instance in some cases, a luminescent ass attached to a flying bug.

 

[Akhenaten]

So the poster above doesn't consider himself to be a "steenkin' skeptic"? How interesting. What is he then? The resident heckler?

<---- Space Pharaoh. I'm here for the fishing.

The point of referencing the official definition of UFO by the people who created it is to alert those who misrepresent the word UFO as possibly being anything simply because the initialism used the word "unidentified".

No, your point is to try and narrow the meaning of UFO so that you can try and wiggle out of having to acknowledge the correct null hypothesis.

It's failing dismally.

Granted, the definition is long and clumsy, but it makes the point that UFOs are by definition not mundane objects, and using it casually as if they are is not correct.

They, Kemo Sabe? You're talking about the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world.

For example it is not correct to say, "I saw a UFO", if what you saw was simply some lights flying overhead. "It would be correct to say I saw some unidentified lights flying overhead." However as portrayed in the video that kicked this all off, it is common to see some skeptic say something like, "When somebody says they saw a UFO, what does that mean? It means they saw something unidentified. In other words they don't know what it was, so it could have been anything." Such portrayals misrepresent the UFO phenomenon and misinform the public. Furthermore, many skeptics must know they are doing it. Certainly the skeptics ( and anyone else ) here should now know better.

Balderdash.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ufology do you think the USAF still uses your so dear definition of 1958?

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray ... I was just going by what you seemed to be saying. What part did I get wrong?

No sceptic has (or even could possibly) "determine every possible case represents a mundane object"

Just that the evidence presented so far is not sufficient to falsify the null hypothesis.

As for my statement about "nonsense" Anything that is written which claims to falsify the null hypothesis is nonsense. You endorse such pseudo scientific nonsense by promoting the fallacy that unless disproven, a story can be claimed as 'OMG - aliens!'.

A real researcher would not do that and it's only in UFOlogy and other paranormal subjects that this misuse of the scientific method is the prevalent method... which is exactly why the term pseudo science is appropriate.