UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Null Hypothesis & Ufology

I am so glad that the pioneers in the weather services didn't make up **** like this because they couldn't do "controlled experiments." If they did, we'd have thousands dead in every hurricane, and hucksters in fields like "weatherology" telling us that it was Thor hurling lightning bolts or aliens or whatever.

We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena. It would be like the weather service predicting accurately where the next ball lightning will be. Large scale weather can be tested with repeated observation of developing systems. UFOs don't behave like that. Consider these points in comparison to the definition of the null hypothesis from Wikipedia:

Null Hypothesis:

"The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false."

"Consider the question of whether a tossed coin is fair (i.e. that on average it lands heads up 50% of the time). A potential null hypothesis is "this coin is not biased towards heads" (one-tail test). The experiment is to repeatedly toss the coin. A possible result of 5 tosses is 5 heads. Under this null hypothesis, the data are considered unlikely (with a fair coin, the probability of this is 3%). The data refute the null hypothesis: the coin is biased."

As Applied to Ufology

We are not in a controlled situation as in the example of a coin toss above, so how do we test the observed data when the observations are so fleeting as to be considered unreliable by the skeptics? It simply isn't possible until such time as a UFO submits itself to such observational testing. In the mean time what would the skeptics have those who have seen a UFO do ... simply say "I don't know" and forget about it? What if these people are pilots and air safety or national defense may be affected? What then? Do we still continue to ignore it? So you see, it's not **** as the above poster could not resist but include in his remarks.

Lastly, why should people who have a personal interest not have the freedom to explore the phenomenon? Many people find it interesting and enjoyable, and that is as good a reason as any so far I'm concerned. Limiting all interest in the subject to what can be proven by a null hypothesis would subtract greatly from the rich array of subject matter and activities that make up ufology as a whole.

 

[ufology]

So that flying-saucery-looking object in your logo for your "Ufology Society International", which you've claimed is ambiguous and doesn't necessarily represent an actual alien craft, isn't a UFO either, right?

Adman:

Now you're catching on. It might be or it might not be ... it all depends.

 

[AdMan]

Adman:

Now you're catching on.

Oh, I caught on to your dishonest arguments ages ago.

By the way, have you contacted MUFON to tell them the definition they are using for UFO is wrong?

ETA: You should really change that logo or you'll be confusing your club members. Why would a ufology organization have a fake UFO on their logo?

 

[RoboTimbo]

We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena. It would be like the weather service predicting accurately where the next ball lightning will be. Large scale weather can be tested with repeated observation of developing systems. UFOs don't behave like that. Consider these points in comparison to the definition of the null hypothesis from Wikipedia:

Null Hypothesis:

"The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."

"Consider the question of whether a tossed coin is fair (i.e. that on average it lands heads up 50% of the time). A potential null hypothesis is "this coin is not biased towards heads" (one-tail test). The experiment is to repeatedly toss the coin. A possible result of 5 tosses is 5 heads. Under this null hypothesis, the data are considered unlikely (with a fair coin, the probability of this is 3%). The data refute the null hypothesis: the coin is biased."

As Applied to Ufology

We are not in a controlled situation as in the example of a coin toss above, so how do we test the observed data when the observations are so fleeting as to be considered unreliable by the skeptics? It simply isn't possible until such time as a UFO submits itself to such observational testing. In the mean time what would the skeptics have those who have seen a UFO do ... simply say "I don't know" and forget about it? What if these people are pilots and air safety or national defense may be affected? What then? Do we still continue to ignore it? So you see, it's not **** as the above poster could not resist but include in his remarks.

Lastly, why should people who merely have a personal interest not have the freedom to explore the phenomenon? Many people find it interesting and enjoyable, and that is as good a reason as any so far I'm concerned.

The null hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All it takes is just one confirmed non-mundane origin. Why would you not want that? If, as you say, every UFO event is transient, why would anyone think that any of them are aliens? Where did that unevidenced idea begin? If you can't use an easily falsifiable null hypothesis such as the correct one:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

then why do you use a pseudoscientific one like "Some UFOs are alien spaceships". That is the hypothesis that you subscribe to, isn't it?

 

[Astrophotographer]

We aren't talking about the weather, we are talking about UFOs which are extremely transient and comparatively rare phenomena.

Actually, we were discussing radar and radio wave propogation (I neglected to state I taught a course on this for three years as an instructor in radio communications). Radio waves can and are affected by the weather. RADAR, which uses radio waves (not heat sensors) to detect objects, is affected by this weather anamolies.

 

[ufology]

Actually, we were discussing radar and radio wave propogation (I neglected to state I taught a course on this for three years as an instructor in radio communications). Radio waves can and are affected by the weather. RADAR, which uses radio waves (not heat sensors) to detect objects, is affected by this weather anamolies.

Astro:

I completely agree with you there. It's just out of context with that point in the conversation where we were discussing the null hypothesis and Carlitos threw the weather into the mix.

Your comment about the heat sensors might be related to the earlier discussion where a debunking paper proposed that an F-16 radar picked up a rising column of warm air from a smoke stack and interpreted it as a solid lock, and that the object then seemed to move rapidly due to the radar mistaking the same lock for other weather anomalies supposedly in the area, combined with mistaking the other F-16. As you may guess, I'm not buying that as any solid case for debunking the F-16 radar tracking records.

Still, I appreciate that the theory was pointed out, and again say thanks.

BTW: That's cool that you did some teaching on radio communications. I enjoy teaching, but have only taught guitar lessons and personal computing in a private setting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As you may guess, I'm not buying that as any solid case for debunking the F-16 radar tracking records.

As you may guess, that's because you are a pseudoscientist UFOlogist using an unfalsifiable null hypothesis "Some UFOs are alien spaceships". That's why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Your comment about the heat sensors might be related to the earlier discussion where a debunking paper proposed that an F-16 radar picked up a rising column of warm air from a smoke stack and interpreted it as a solid lock, and that the object then moved rapidly due to the radar mistaking the same lock for other weather anomalies supposedly in the area, combined with mistaking the other F-16. As you may guess, I'm not buying that as any solid case for debunking the F-16 radar tracking records.

I still can't believe you are sticking with this misrepresentation with what I and others have written about this case. On my webpage, which I assume is what you called "a debunking paper", I state the following about the event in question:

Looking at the summary report gives a certain impression not so readily obtained when looking at the transcripts of the flight. We know the pilots were scrambled to investigate the contact that was supposed to be the same as the visual sightings by the Gendarmie. However, reading the transcript, we discover the pilots could not see this contact on radar or visually, despite flying by the target! At 0007, the pilots are talking to control and discover that their first target is at 310 degrees azimuth and 15nm away. When asked for an altitude, control does not have one! The planes travel at 9000 feet. Eventually the controlling station gives an altitude of 10,000 feet and gives direction for an intercept. The F-16s rapidly close at a rate of roughly 7nm/min. This equates to roughly 420 knots, which is the air speed of the F-16. Although we do not know the exact speed at this moment, it certainly appears the radar contact they were sent to intercept was moving very slow or was stationary. As the planes close, we hear Glons pointing out that the target is slow moving. The planes then pass by the target (supposedly the target is overhead) but the pilots see nothing and track nothing on radar. This continues for some time as the pilots move about. By 0013, Glons has lost contact and all the pilots can show for it is a flashing light on the ground. This later turns out to be a smokestack.

I still have yet to see where I (or Marc Hallet) stated that the F-16s locked onto the column of air from the smokestack. Nobody ever stated this but you keep repeating it as if we did. Why is this? I really wish you could get your facts straight because I am getting tired of correcting you. If this is your reason for claiming the case is not debunked, it is an uninformed opinion. As a result, that opinion carries no merit.

EDIT: I went back to look what I wrote earlier this morning about the smokestack and I think it is clear that I stated that it was the radar control center that was registering the contact and not the F-16s. I can see that you are having a problem with reading comprehension and you keep ignoring my corrections. It is almost as if you are putting your hands over your ears and are screaming "LA! LA! LA! I AM NOT LISTENING!!!!!"

 

[ufology]

I still can't believe you are sticking with this misrepresentation with what I and others have written about this case ... bla bla bla

Why do you always start out friendly and then get all nasty and making presumptions instead of asking me for some clarification? Here is a quote directly from the paper at: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

"What really happened that night was examined by Auguste Meessen over the 1990s and by the BAF. Initially the data from the F-16s appeared promising and exciting. However, after examining the data carefully, it was determined that all the contacts could be explained. What produced the contacts? According to Auguste Meessen, he feels that cells of warm humid air produced these false echoes. He suggests that these convection cells were the source of all the false echoes seen by the ground stations. The F-16 data indicates that the contacts they recorded were also of this nature." ​

We read only a short time later:

"The F-16s were directed to this but all they could see was a smokestack light. The location reported closely matches the location of a power generating station/factory on my map of Belgium (it appears to be a short distance to the WSW). Is it possible that the rising heat plume created a temperature inversion column that affected the radio waves passing through it and generated a false contact? Or is it possible that the soot rising from the smokestack was reflecting the radio waves? Professor Meessen writes that smokestacks can produce their own microclimates and form false echoes."
​

 

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps an apology is in order?

I am so sorry you are so ignorant.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps an apology is in order? Or is this forum just not civil enough for that?

If you are apologizing for your misrepresentations, outright fabrications, and logical fallacies then I accept as long as you also promise to cease those kinds of shenanigans. I can only accept your apology for myself, everyone else you are apologizing to can speak for themselves.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Why do you always start out friendly and then get all nasty and making presumptions instead of asking me for some clarification? Here is a quote directly from the paper at:

Because you have ignored everything I have written about this case. BTW, if you haven't figured it out, I wrote that web page!

He suggests that these convection cells were the source of all the false echoes seen by the ground stations. The F-16 data indicates that the contacts they recorded were also of this nature.

I don't see where I stated the F-16s locked on to the smokestack, which is what you keep stating. In fact, it states that these convection cells were the cause of the false echoes seen by the ground radar. The false echoes seen by the F-16s could have been caused by similar cells but at no point did I write that these cells came from a smoke stack. Warm and cold pockets of air are going to affect radar signals no matter what the source and cause false returns.


"The F-16s were directed to this but all they could see was a smokestack light. The location reported closely matches the location of a power generating station/factory on my map of Belgium (it appears to be a short distance to the WSW). Is it possible that the rising heat plume created a temperature inversion column that affected the radio waves passing through it and generated a false contact? Or is it possible that the soot rising from the smokestack was reflecting the radio waves? Professor Meessen writes that smokestacks can produce their own microclimates and form false echoes."

You edited out the previous sentence.The radar contact initially reported appeared to be to the southwest of Wavre. The radar contact that I referred to was the initial contact from the ground radar. The radar center directed those F-16s to that contact. If you read the entire article, you would understand this. I am not sure what you are trying to prove other than you are having problems in reading comprehension.

Perhaps an apology is in order? Or is this forum just not civil enough for that?

Considering you have completely misrepresented what I wrote on this web page, I don't see a need for an apology from me. I know and understand what I wrote. You actually owe me an apology for completely misrepresenting what I stated.

You seem to have problems grasping the concepts and descriptions I have on that web page. This means your opinion remains uninformed and worthless. You can not declare the effort invalid if you don't understand what is being described.

 

[R.A.F.]

Kinda pointless to delete your apology "request" after it has been quoted twice.



edit...make that thrice.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I was just looking at my old files on Belgium and found a 2006 e-mail from Physicist Roger Paquay (who has written some good articles for SUNlite on the Belgium UFO wave). He states the following about the F-16 radar signals:


First, the Gilmard-Salmon report (*) concluded that three of the observations were the second F16, that the abnormal echoes were due to abnormal atmospheric conditions. The bright lights seen from ground were stars very bright this evening. For the only radar echo detected from ground you must know that the pilots did see nothing at this place.

Professor Meessen recognized in VOB2 (second book from Sobeps) that the abnormal echoes were due to meteorological circumstances from very long duration.

A third explanation based on the properties from pulse radar Doppler can complete and explain entirely the observations. I found it in a theory book on radars “ Radars, bases modernes” written by Michel Carpentier, engineer, general technical manager at “Thomson CSF”. This book was edited by “Masson editions” ,Paris, in 1981. You must know that Thomson CSF is a specialist firm for radars and equipped many Belgian and European airport.

The pulse Doppler radar uses eight wave trains with 64 impulses at eight frequencies that are different each others from 100 hertz.

The observed phenomenon, echoes with very high speed, is a characteristic from the pulse Doppler radar and is related to his detection mode by correlation on quasi simultaneous impulses. They don’t are related to a real object and have not any signification.

I have read and studied this book that is used as reference book in many airports.

In this book you find:

On the radar, a bright spot is a detected echo and the move from the bright spot at each contact characterizes the move from the object if it is a real one. But the place of the bright spot depends on the emitted frequency. So, when the radar emit short pulses on different frequencies to have a more precise detection you can observe this phenomena : if the frequency change during the time needed to determine the radial speed you obtain spots with very high speeds. These spots don’t correspond to a real object; they indicate the speed from the bright point move. In the book, page 224, you find:

“Lorsque le radar change de fréquence centrale d’émission pendant le temps nécessaire à la mesure de la vitesse radiale des cibles, on mesure surtout la vitesse avec laquelle le point brillant s’est déplacé pendant le même temps, vitesse qui peut être énorme ».

Translation:

« When the radar change his central frequency during the time needed to measure the radial speed of the target, you measure the speed with whom the bright point moved during the same time, speed that can be very high”.

This property explain the high speeds detected and the fantastic but not real accelerations because they don’t correspond to a real object. The F16 pilot’s recognize they often observe these spot during a few seconds but they don’t care of them. They say these spots are generally vertical and at very high speed. This seems a very good explanation for the phenomena.


So we must conclude: from the calculations and from the radar properties that the fantastics accelerations are inexistent. They were announced because the verification of the data coherence was not done. These false results were published by the Medias without verification and used by ufologist to say that extraterrestrial engine were here with fantastic properties.

I edited out all of his physics calculations for simplicity but you get the picture. Additionally, his english is not exactly correct but he gets his point across. It is as I wrote on my webpage on the subject. Despite protests from UFOlogy, it is time to declare this case debunked.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Kinda pointless to delete your apology "request" after it has been quoted twice.



edit...make that thrice.

More of his dishonesty.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

However if you really want to use a well phrased null hypothesis, it would be better to say something like:

"All UFO reports have mundane explanations"

​

I don't think this is a good null hypothesis at all, because it's easily (and already) falsified. Some reports will remain unexplained simply because of a lack of information. Therefore not all reports have any explanation, mundane or otherwise.

And up to this point, all reports are either explained by mundane things or remain unexplained for lack of information. Given that every single time there has been enough information to explain things it's always been a mundane explanation, which way do you think is the way to bet on the rest if more information was available?

 

[ufology]

Because you have ignored everything I have written about this case. BTW, if you haven't figured it out, I wrote that web page!

He suggests that these convection cells were the source of all the false echoes seen by the ground stations. The F-16 data indicates that the contacts they recorded were also of this nature ... bla bla bla

Notice that I didn't say you said anything about the radar locking onto the smokestack itself.

I was referencing the physics professor Meessen who in the article explains the F-16 radar lock-ons as being of the same nature as the ground radar and that he goes on to explain this "nature" involved the exhaust from a smokestack, as was also highlighted. To quote again:


"Is it possible that the rising heat plume created a temperature inversion column that affected the radio waves passing through it and generated a false contact?"

These points are what gave rise to my comments about the F-16 radars locking onto the exhaust from the smokestack. It basically says so right there in the article. Therefore I see no reason to change my view.

However, since you claim to be the one who wrote the paper, perhaps you might want to change the sections I highlighted to clarify:

• That what the F-16 radars had been theorized to have locked onto, wasn't actually the same nature as the ground contacts ( as is clearly stated ), and which was theorized to have been the smokestack exhaust ( also clearly stated ). This will allow us to rule out the theory that the F-16 radar had locked onto the smokestack exhaust.
• Explain what the F-16 had actually locked onto during the part in the General's briefing where he describes the F-16 radar locking onto and tracking an object ( maintaining its lock ) while the object pulled high speed, high acceleration, evasive maneuvers.

Also provide some commentary on why during previous dates no similar radar problems were encountered. Why hadn't the ground or other aircraft radar locked onto this exhaust plume before? Smoke stacks don't generally pick themselves up and wander off.

 

[ufology]

I don't think this is a good null hypothesis at all, because it's easily (and already) falsified. Some reports will remain unexplained simply because of a lack of information. Therefore not all reports have any explanation, mundane or otherwise.

And up to this point, all reports are either explained by mundane things or remain unexplained for lack of information. Given that every single time there has been enough information to explain things it's always been a mundane explanation, which way do you think is the way to bet on the rest if more information was available?

Jim:

If saying UFOs are all mundane objects isn't correct, and saying UFO reports have mundane explanations isn't correct. Then what would you suggest?

Bear in mind that not all the unexplained cases remain unexplained because there is not sufficient information to explain them as mundane objects, but because they were so non-mundane that we don't have any conventional way of explaining them ... whatever they are, such UFOs are not mundane objects.

 

[tsig]

Chuck Guiteau:

Thank you for your question chuck. I am happy to answer.

Q: "How does one make the jump from "Unidentified Flying Object" ( irrespective of whose definition you use ), to "Vehicle of Extraterrestrial Origin"?"

A: What we are dealing with in recent posts is the lexicon of ufology; how the jargon and definitions apply in various contexts. It is important to understand this in relation to the "Research" part of the thread topic, because so many people get it mixed up and the small things can make all the difference. So please bear with me. First I'm going to be very specific with respect to your question. Although the phrase "unidentified flyng object" has the same initials as the word UFO, the word UFO was created by the USAF to replace the phrase "flying saucers", which were presumed to be extraterrestrial craft. So immediately people began associating the phrase UFO with alien craft, and that is the way it's been ever since.

Now your question could also mean, how do people make the mental jump from what is being investigated in a UFO report, or what they are observing, from being merely an unidentified object in the sky, to an alien craft, or from a UFO ( generic ) to a UFO ( specific e.g. non-mundane or alien craft )?

The answer to the above is that a process of elimination is used. The USAF definitions tried to define several characterisitics of several different types of known phenomena, that when ruled out leave only the conclusion that the object was non-mundane. The incident during the Washington National sighting where a USAF jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a visible object that the pilot pursued, but could not catch due to it's "phenomenal speed", is one example. Or it could be as simple as you see something yourself, that as an intelligent, well informed, healthy, unimpaired person simply knows from the evidence of your senses, is so foreign, that it must be alien.

At this point many people simply jump to an extraterrestrial explanation based on the logical assumption that the infrastructure required to manufacture such advanced technology ( UFO mother ships for example ) would be so complex that it simply could not be hidden on Earth without us knowing about it, and therefore it must be extraterrestrial.

Personally I find, based on the overwhelming number of personal experiences where alien craft have been reported, that the probability of them all being mistakes or hoaxes based on poor information is so low as to make the reality of such craft a virtual certainty, even if you haven't seen one yourself ( which I have ). Once you accept that there are craft alien to our civilization, it's not hard to accept the probability that they are ET.

Lastly, the above explains how the "jump" is made from merely seeing or studying to believing that it is reasonable based on probabilities, to accept the reality of alien visitation. However that is not the same as "believing in" something, as in accepting it as an assumed undeniable truth. Even I don't go that far except with my own experience. For other people's individual experiences I go on investigative information. For the rest of the UFO witnesses in general, I accept that many of them are telling the truth because I can't be the only person who has had such an experience. In fact the objects described by one of the pilots during the Washington National sightings ( bluish white spheres ) sound very much like the same thing I saw in 1975.

As for the rest, I can't explain how people come to believe in what I call "woofology", ( although to many skeptics it's all woo ). For example, I have no idea about the truth of "space brothers" or "reptilian overlords" or "alien channellers".

Q. Eyewitness statements are the most unreliable type of evidence that can be presented. What evidence, other than witness statements, do you have to support your position?

A. Eyewitness statements may be unreliable in some situations and really good in others. Human perception has scientifically established parameters of accuity. For example, that's what allows us to determine visual accuity and make perfect eyeglasses. Human vision is even better within its range than most hardware because of the way we can discern the dynamic range of a scene. Combine this level of visual accuity with people whose physical health and limits are known by extensive baseline testing ( such as air force pilots ), and the probability that they accurately report what they see under favorable conditions is very high, far better than the information you get in virtually every fuzzy UFO photo I've seen that hasn't been shown to be a hoax.

To answer specifically with respect to "other" evidence. The only other evidence there is that we know of for certain in that regard are radar tracking records, bits of so-called "trace evidence", and fuzzy photos/videos. The most impressive radar tracking evidence I've seen was presented by the Belgian Air Force. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

FYI:

150 knots = about 172 MPH
990 Knots = about 1,140 MPH

Your eyes saw something your brain couldn't process. ALIENS!!!!

 

[R.A.F.]

...what would you suggest?

A course in rational thinking couldn't hurt.