UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Timbo:

It is not logical to claim I am incorrect. It is only reasonable of you to doubt it based on your own lack of firsthand experience or other proof that meets your standards of belief.

Apparently we need to add 'logical', 'incorrect' and 'reasonable' to the list of redfined words because this post makes absolutely no sense if you're using those words with their conventional meanings.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo

The above isn't what I'm doing and you have not made any logical argument as to how you have determined conclusively that UFOs have not shown themselves to be alien craft.

Of course I haven't. You're being illogical again. You make the claim that they are alien craft, you have the burden of proof to show that they are alien craft. You haven't done that yet. The easily falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it hasn't been falsified, even thought it would only take one.

Again, simply because you haven't seen one and there is no evidence that meets your standards, does not equal proof that it has never happened.

Again, you are attempting to switch the burden of proof. You are making the claim that some UFOs are alien spaceships but you have never satisfied that burden of proof. The ball is still in your court, burden-of-proof wise. Do you see the problem that pseudscientists come up against because they start with a pseudoscientific and unfalsifiable null hypothesis?

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo

The above isn't what I'm doing and you have not made any logical argument as to how you have determined conclusively that UFOs have not shown themselves to be alien craft.

The only logical argument that's required is to quote the null hypothesis. Since you're the one seeking to overturn that hypothesis then the burden of providing the evidence is upon you.

Asking for evidence for the non-existence of something isn't just illogical, it's utterly nonsensical.

Again, simply because you haven't seen one and there is no evidence that meets your standards, does not equal proof that it has never happened.

1. Stop misusing the word proof.
   
   
2. Stop pretending that it's only RoboTimbo who has to be satisfied here.
   
   
3. Nobody has ever seen an alien flying saucer. Nobody. Ever.

 

[Akhenaten]

In common language, the word UFO is a reference to alien craft as an identifier of what we mean to convey, as something we have seen ourselves, somone claims to have seen, or simply wants to talk about.

Hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha! <Gasp> Hahahahahahahahahhahahahah!

No.

Indeed. That's the most bizarre redefinition yet.

 

[ufology]

Of course I haven't. You're being illogical again. You make the claim that they are alien craft, you have the burden of proof to show that they are alien craft ...

Robo:

It isn't necessary to prove a belief for it to be true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The most you can do is without evidence that meets your standards for belief is remain doubtful. Beyond that is bias.

 

[Resume]

Robo:

It isn't necessary for to prove a belief for it to be true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The most you can do is without evidence that meets your standards for belief is remain doubtful. Beyond that is bias.

Absence of evidence is . . . absense of evidence. Evidence is what is necessary lend credence to a claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

It isn't necessary for to prove a belief for it to be true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The most you can do is without evidence that meets your standards for belief is remain doubtful. Beyond that is bias.

No, you are being illogical again. The null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified. You may believe anything you want. You may have whatever opinion you want. You may not have whatever facts you want.

Do you see why adopting an unfalsifiable null hypothesis such as yours "Some UFOs are of alien origin" is pseudoscientific and illogical? Your bias is coloring your perception, your memory, and your opinions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Absence of evidence is . . . absense of evidence. Evidence is what is necessary lend credence to a claim.

Indeed. He seems to think that absence of evidence is evidence of evidence.

 

[ufology]

Absence of evidence is . . . absense of evidence. Evidence is what is necessary lend credence to a claim.

Resume:

No argument there. It's also not the issue. It was concluded with certainty by a poster that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft. I countered by saying alien craft have shown themselves, just not to the poster. There is no evidence that I am wrong, only insufficent evidence for some people to believe I'm right. Therefore concluding I am wrong goes beyond logic and into personal bias.

 

[Resume]

Resume:

No argument there. It's also not the issue. It was concluded with certainty by a poster that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft. I countered by saying alien craft have shown themselves, just not to the poster. There is no evidence that I am wrong, only insufficent evidence for some people to believe I'm right. Therefore concluding I am wrong goes beyond logic and into personal bias.

Drawing a conclusion with no corroboration indicates faith, belief. Not scientific by any stretch.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resume:

No argument there. It's also not the issue. It was concluded with certainty by a poster that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft. I countered by saying alien craft have shown themselves, just not to the poster. There is no evidence that I am wrong, only insufficent evidence for some people to believe I'm right. Therefore concluding I am wrong goes beyond logic and into personal bias.

No, you are incorrect. Your declaration that UFOs are alien craft was incorrect based on the lack of evidence. You began with your conclusion which is illogical and pseudoscientific. Akhenaten was correct and you were not. The null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified. Therefore, you are incorrect and illogical until you can falsify the null hypothesis.

Unless you're also saying that some coins turn into butterflies? Would you say that that is a logical position to hold and correct until proven wrong? How would you go about proving it wrong?

 

[ufology]

Unless you're also saying that some coins turn into butterflies? Would you say that that is a logical position to hold and correct until proven wrong? How would you go about proving it wrong?

Robo

The UFO issue is a reasonable, plausible and possible one, not ridiculous. Butterfly logic does not apply. Simply because a "null hypothesis" has not been disproven, does not make it true. To Quote: It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven ( Wikipedia ). If it can never be proven, how was it concluded with such certainty to be true if not by personal bias?

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo:

It isn't necessary to prove a belief for it to be true.

Why do you insist of using 'prove' when you mean 'provide evidence for'?

In any case, the above is ridiculous claim. There's no reason whatsoever to believe any claim without evidence. and in the case of extraordinary claims like yours then the evidence likewise needs to be extraordinary.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Evidence, ufology. The word is evidence.

That thing of which you have none.

The most you can do is without evidence that meets your standards for belief is remain doubtful.

No, the most/least/only reasonable thing to do is default to the null hypothesis - there are no flying saucers.

Beyond that is bias.

Being biased in favour of reality is a good thing. Denying it outright as you are, not so much.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo

The UFO issue is a reasonable, plausible and possible one, not ridiculous.

No, it is not reasonable nor plausible.

Butterfly logic does not apply.

Then you haven't understood the null hypothesis. It is exactly the same.

Simply because a "null hypothesis" has not been disproven, does not make it true.

No, it is assumed to be true until it is falsified. You still don't understand the null hypothesis.

To Quote: It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven ( Wikipedia ). If it can never be proven, how was it concluded with such certainty to be true if not by personal bias?

You don't understand the purpose of the null hypothesis. It is assumed to be true until it is falsified. It only needs one instance to falsify it. It has never been falsified and is therefore assumed to be true.

Your pseudoscientific null hypothesis "Some UFOs are alien in origin" can never be falsified.

Do you see the difference yet?

Oh, and of course science is biased in favor of reality. Calling it personal bias is a bit disingenuous on your part.

 

[Akhenaten]

Resume:

No argument there. It's also not the issue. It was concluded with certainty by a poster that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft. I countered by saying alien craft have shown themselves, just not to the poster.

You're getting dangerously close to simply asserting that alien craft exist for people who have seen them but not for people who haven't.

Where you've failed to define flying saucers into existence you now appear to be trying to faith them into being.

It's not a good look at all.

There is no evidence that I am wrong, only insufficent evidence for some people to believe I'm right.

There's no evidence that I'm wrong in believing there's an invisible pink dragon in my garage either.

Therefore concluding I am wrong goes beyond logic and into personal bias.

Drivel.

 

[ufology]

Drawing a conclusion with no corroboration indicates faith, belief. Not scientific by any stretch.

Resume:

It was the poster who claimed no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft who has no coroboration. Indeed, if we take a poll, we find many people who say they have seen an alien craft. Oh but then suddenly we must now move the goalposts? Now only people who can provide evidence are telling the truth. So we find even more people with corroborating evidence of the same thing. Oh but then we must move the goalposts some more? So we find really credible people like pilots who have been vectored by radar to pursue such objects. Oh but then we move the goalposts some more ... now only scientific proof will do? OK fine, we civilians don't have that evidence yet, but what we do have is far from "no corroboration". On the other hand, offhandedly concluding in the face of so many witnesses, that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft, is itself an extraordinary claim. Furthermore it's impossible to prove. It's bias pure and simple.

 

[edge]

Here’s all I can find from that story in Gary Indiana that relates, or might relate to that story that I posted earlier.
From this site; http://ed-thelen.org/ifc.html

8. Tactical Headquarters

During the 1955-56 alerts we happily tracked airliners and private planes (there was nothing else).

I get a date here.

412 Target Designation System
There was an empty place in the corner of the BC Van behind the Acquition Operator that rumor said was to be a "412" communication unit to enable "Tactical Headquarters" to make displays on our scopes indicating which targets to shoot at. This had not arrived by February 1957 when I returned to civilian life.

and so with this date we are in the timeline that I reported.

One night our unit turned in a UFO report (to the Air Force who was in charge of handling UFO reports at the time). Our folks (I was on a three day pass.) reported object was traveling very high (above 50,000 feet) at about 550 miles per hour. Not at all like the usual propeller driven airliner (most airliners way back then were piston engine or turbo-prop traveling much slower) preparing to land at Midway (O'Hare was just being planned). According to the folks who wrote the report, the object approached from the east, got almost overhead, then suddenly turned, heading north, and they lost it to the north at the limits of the tracking and acq scan limits.

(In 1960 Francis Gary Powers was downed in the USSR, and the U-2 became public. I now wonder if a U-2 was the object of that UFO report. According to a web page that no longer exists
"August 4, 1955: First flight of the U-2 at Groom Lake. ") Possibly the report (from Nike site C-41) still exists.

Interesting the path From Gary to Chicago would be exactly as described by the report, but what took that path?
Now what my parents described was a circling plane and the object going straight up, could this plane have been the U2?
Or was the U2 the UFO?
Wouldn’t the Nike missile base been told that one is heading that way?
They were connected to the Air Force.
After 57 they had new orders, shoot to kill.
Who said NASA hasn’t anything to contribute?
http://wn.com/Navy_Distinguished_Achievement_in_Science_Award

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo

The UFO issue is a reasonable, plausible and possible one, not ridiculous. Butterfly logic does not apply.

What UFO issue?

Simply because a "null hypothesis" has not been disproven, does not make it true.

Rubbish. I we weren't able to invoke the idea of null hypotheses we'd be living in a world where every single thing that every single person claimed would have to be deemed true.

It's a little disappointing at this stage to realise that you are unable to see the absurdity of this situation.

To Quote: It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven ( Wikipedia ). If it can never be proven, how was it concluded with such certainty to be true if not by personal bias?

By reality, ufology. Refering to reality as personal bias on the part of pointing out the flaws in your faith-based devotion to the reality of flying saucers is looking increasingly desperate on your part.

 

[ufology]

Now what my parents described was a circling plane and the object going straight up, could this plane have been the U2? Or was the U2 the UFO?

Interesting story. U2s had a maximum speed of about 500MPH. They had really long wings for high altitude flight and going too fast would break them apart. They weren't meant for speed and certainly could not go straight up.

 

[Akhenaten]

Resume:

It was the poster who claimed no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft who has no coroboration.

<drivelsnip>

Garbage.


No UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft. This statement no more needs corroboration than a statement that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden.

If you want to demonstrate that the statement is wrong then you'll need to stop this absurd claim that we have to take your word for the existence of these things and produce some actual evidence.

That you haven't done so already is a rather obvious clue that you never will.