UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

You'll have to do better than that. Your affirmations carry no weight with me ... bla bla bla

Archer:

My conformance to your personal criteria is not required. Believe what you want. Make your own rules. Proclaim your own truths. Follow your own logic. So long as you enjoy the ride you might still get something out of it along the way.

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't forget 'confirmed'.

And 'forget' for that matter.

 

[AdMan]

Believe what you want. Make your own rules. Proclaim your own truths. Follow your own logic. So long as you enjoy the ride you might still get something out of it along the way.

In other words, you are suggesting people follow your own strategy.

 

[ufology]

In other words, you are suggesting people follow your own strategy.

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[ehcks]

Archer:

My conformance to your personal criteria is not required. Believe what you want. Make your own rules. Proclaim your own truths. Follow your own logic. So long as you enjoy the ride you might still get something out of it along the way.

The truth is the truth. Logic is logic. Rules may be made by people, but those other two things can't change.

As much as I'd like to, I can not reject your reality and substitute my own. Sorry, Adam Savage. That just doesn't work.

ETA: And in this reality, we have no evidence that aliens even exist to be able to have space ships, and even if they did, we still have no evidence they've ever visited Earth. As far as we actually know, aliens may not exist at all.

 

[23_Tauri]

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

Oh but hang on....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7580346#post7580346

I tried Google. It takes me to your own website where you simply blindly quote from Ruppelt's book... Along with another 145 results of other similar websites blindly quoting exactly the same paragraph. Apparently the book's copyright was not renewed and therefore it is available freely online.
This of course doesn't get us any closer to the source for this story.

Perhaps you could point us to another source with which to verify that it was written accurately in Ruppelt's book, maybe one of the FoI released files or even an official Blue Book file?

Stray Cat asked you to provide those 'independent sources' because he could find nothing except 145 websites quoting Ruppelt's book. On Ruppelt's book - and I quote again....

Ruppelt wrote this from his memory of seeing a report a decade or so prior to writing his book and none of the information is verifiable.

Reminiscences of one's time in the forces working on Blue Book does not constitute 'independent sources'.

So, you got any? Ones that are verifiable and backed up by original documents would be good.

 

[Akhenaten]

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic they are embraced heartily by the skeptics here, and yet yours are universally rejected.

What does this tell you, ufology?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

And I thought I had been following this thread fairly closely.

 

[Toke]

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

Are you trying symptomatic magic now, that stating something makes it so?

 

[Garrison]

Archer:

My conformance to your personal criteria is not required. Believe what you want. Make your own rules. Proclaim your own truths. Follow your own logic. So long as you enjoy the ride you might still get something out of it along the way.

So why are you bothering to post in a thread called 'UFOs: The Research, The Evidence' when you apparently intend to present neither? Perhaps you should should start one called 'UFOs: The Semantics, The Definition'.

 

[Belgian thought]

Archer:

Follow your own logic.

Since when is logic subjective? - unless you are referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic

And do read it carefully...

 

[ufology]

Since when is logic subjective? - unless you are referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic

And do read it carefully...

Interesting article ... what's your point?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison:

There is no evidence to prove I'm wrong, and assumptions do not facilitate conclusions made with certainty.

Have you proved wrong the null hypothesis that some flipped coins turn into butterflies? If not, why not?

They are only assumptions. Your definition of UFO is also wrong as is easily evidenced through multiple official definitions posted earlier from the USAF, invetigative experts and dictionaries.

The outdated and superseded one that you cherry picked from 1958?

Your choice to ignore these facts

When will you present facts?

and your support for the irrational belief

LOL. Project much?

that it is a certainty that no UFOs have ever shown themselves to be alien craft only exposes your own bias.

LOL. Project much?

Feel free to doubt all you want until you have the proof you need to satisfy yourself, but thinking your personal doubt is the the same as the absolute truth is faulty logic.

Have you seen a coin turn into a butterfly yet?

 

[Toke]

Interesting article ... what's your point?

He is just making a WAG on how your personal logic works.
Don't worry about him, the rest of us know you are not limiting yourself to something as formal as actual subjective logics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison:

The hand waving is being done by you and the others

LOL. Project much?

who support Ahenaten's position

Who? DOC, is that you?

that it is a certainty that no UFO has shown itself to be an alien craft.

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"
has never been falsified. Unless you've discovered one in the last 10 minutes? No?

I asked for the evidence of that and none has been given ... in fact none can be given. That was backed by my response to Robo when I pointed out that the null hypothesis cannot be proven. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the truth here?

You still don't understand the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true and is meant to be falsified, even if by only one instance. When you have that one instance, you let me know, m'kay?

What kind of programming is at work that causes you fail to recognize it rather than dodge it or dismiss it?

LOL. Project much?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Adman:

I suggest that when statements are backed by independent sources and logic, as mine have been, that they be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of this discussion.

When they are, they will be. Will it be soon?

 

[ufology]

You still don't understand the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true and is meant to be falsified, even if by only one instance. When you have that one instance, you let me know, m'kay?

Timbo:

Again you start with the innuendo. I understand the null hypothesis just fine. It is not appropriate for the study of UFOs, but since you are so are fond of it, I quoted the independent reference ( Wikipedia ) where it says that is important to realize that the null hypothesis can never be proven, yet that is what Akhenaten does with such certainty when he says, no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft ... ever.

Akhenaten's statement is an obvious conclusion that the null hypothesis has been proven. Simply because the null hypothesis has not been disproven does not mean it has been proven. Allow me to quote again: "For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality.

How long are you going to go on defending Akhenaten's position when he has admitted he doesn't even consider himself to be a skeptic?

 

[Toke]

Timbo:

Again you start with the innuendo. I understand the null hypothesis just fine. It is not appropriate for the study of UFOs,....

You know, appropriate does not mean "convenient for my purposes".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo:

Again you start with the innuendo.

What innuendo are you talking about?

I understand the null hypothesis just fine.

No, you do not.

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the hypothesis which you're trying to prove. Your hypothesis is "Some UFOs are alien in origin". To prove your hypothesis, you must falsify the null hypothesis which is "All UFOs are mundane in origin". I'll give you a simpler example which I hope you aren't so emotionally invested in and maybe you can understand that.

The hypothesis is "Some flipped coins turn into butterflies". The null hypothesis would be [NOT]{Some flipped coins turn into butterflies} or simpler "No flipped coins turn into butterflies". Do you see yet why the null hypothesis is assumed to be true but can never be proven true? You can never observe all flipped coins to see that none of them have turned into butterflies. We assume the null hypothesis to be true, unless you're insane. Can you guess how many coins would have to turn into butterflies to falsify the null hypothesis? That's right, one. How many flipped coins would you have to observe NOT turning into butterflies to prove the hypothesis? That's right, infinite. I'm not sure I can simple it down any further for you.

It is not appropriate for the study of UFOs, but since you are so are fond of it, I quoted the independent reference ( Wikipedia ) where it says that is important to realize that the null hypothesis can never be proven, yet that is what Akhenaten does with such certainty when he says, no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft ... ever.

Yes, it is appropriate for the study of UFOs. Why would you think otherwise? Your hypothesis is "Some UFOs are alien in origin". The null hypothesis therefore is "All UFOs are mundane in origin". How many confirmed UFOs as alien spaceship would it take to falsify the null hypothesis? That's right, one. How many have? That's right, none.

Akhenaten's statement is an obvious conclusion that the null hypothesis has been proven. Simply because the null hypothesis has not been disproven does not mean it has been proven. Allow me to quote again: "For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality.

I hope now that I've simpled it down for you that you are appropriately embarrassed by your misstatements about the null hypothesis and we'll have no more shenanigans.

How long are you going to go on defending Akhenaten's position when he has admitted he doesn't even consider himself to be a skeptic?

I will defend reality as long as it takes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

the null hypothesis can never be proven

Allow me to quote again: "For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality.

It's just a shame that you dishonestly left out the important bit: "assertions that are capable of being proven false". How would your pseudoscientific hypothesis "Some UFOs are alien in origin" ever be falsified?