UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

I can mostly agree to mostly agree.

 

[John Albert]

It also has the "One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People Eater".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx47qrH1GRs

But what has that got to do with evidence for flying saucers?

It also has this:

..and this:

 

[Aepervius]

True enough, I suppose, but then every argument made by anyone would involve falsifying the null hypothesis that they were wrong. I was specifically referring to the divide between exploratory and hypothesis-driven methodologies.

A quick google search turned up a cute tizzy with more carefully worded arguments about the distinction:
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/11-2008-animalcules-and-forum/512-forum
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/02-2009-letters/49-defining-descriptive-research
http://www.microbemagazine.org/inde...-driven-research&catid=142:letters&Itemid=180

Unless our alien overlord are on the micrometer size, I fail to see how this could have even a remote relevance to the thread ETA: because tehre is indeed a null for ufology.

 

[Wudang]

Or even

Take me to your reader!

 

[John Albert]

You're asserting that just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience and therefore you leap to the conclusion that UFOlogy can't be pseudoscience.

I believe you're thinking of the converse of affirming the consequent, ie. denying the antecedent.

"Things that use jargon aren't pseudoscience; UFOlogy uses jargon; therefore UFOlogy is not pseudoscience."

The above statement would indeed represent a "denial of the antecedent" fallacy, but there's yet another problem with it. The initial premise is incorrect. The use of jargon does not preclude a practice from being pseudoscience.

Anyway, I'm not sure that's even the rationale ufology was using in his post. It appeared he was trying to justify his redefinition of the term "UFO" by making a false analogy to technical terminology used in the sciences and other disciplines.

The problem with that analogy is that ufology's cherry-picked definition is not a universal term of art shared by everyone within the UFOlogy community. That particular definition is not only idiosyncratic, and at odds with the common usage and the initialization of the acronym itself, but it's also been obsolete for over 50 years now and has been superseded in the USAF jargon by at least 3 later revisions.

As Puddle Duck (a former USAF pilot) dutifully pointed out:

Ufology, your references to AFR 200-2 have always been to the '58 version. I'm wondering why you picked that one. Most of the UFON sites are using the '54 version. The only difference that I can see in the definition section of page 1 is the fact that prior to '58, the acronym was UFOB where in the '58 version it changed to UFO, better fitting the common definition.

I couldn't find the '59 version, so I don't know what it looked liked, but the version AFR 200-2(20Jul1962) was the last version of the reg. and so should be the one to be used. Actually, to be proper, AFR 80-17(19Sep1966) should be the one to be used as it superseded 200-2. However, the wording changed in the '62 version to include "any aerial phenomena", so that change would not sit very well for the sites that are pushing the nuts & bolts ET philosophy.

Here Puddle Duck runs down all the changes in the definition of "UFO" ever since its adoption by the US military. He catches ufology in the act of cherry-picking not only the definition itself, but also certain portions of the definition that supports his argument while excising other portions:

Well you should stop it. You're doing it wrong.
You quoted part of the known area. It's Para 2 under unknown aircraft

From the '54 version
2. Definitions:
a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.


This is the known

b. Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.

Notice "and so forth" above in b. At the time it was written, the authors thought the definition of 'Familiar Objects' to be satisfactory. BUT, in comes all kind of crap as unknowns and they say to themselves "omg! everybody out there are idiots, we have to expand the definition" So the definition of "known' goes from eight words to……

The '58 version!
The big change in the title is to drop the B to make the acronym UFO instead of UFOB.
a--Familiar or known objects--Aircraft, birds, balloons , kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars)

b--Unknown aircraft--
1--Flying object determined to be aircraft. ( and paraphrased as) This is ADC's problem so don't send thim to us.
2 Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO
3 Pilotless aircraft and missiles

c--Unidentified Flying abjects--(identical to the '54 definition with a couple of wordsmithing changes)

So ufology has essentially been using the most outdated and obsolete definition on the books, that nobody even in the USAF uses any more.

Here, Puddle Duck points out exactly where ufology's preferred definition (with its questionable interpretation of the word, "unknown") was first superseded by the USAF in 1962:

The '62 versiion
The definitions of 'known' stays the same.

The definition of unknown changes.The definition of the '58 is
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 or b above.
And
The '62 is

b-- Unidentified Flying Objects--Any aerial phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.​

​

Here, Puddle Duck points out that ufology's anachronistic definition, which has already been revised twice over the old 1958 definition, gets redefined yet again in 1966 to mean exactly the same thing as the common, up-to-date dictionary definition:

After that let's look at AFR 80-17. In 1966, the definition changed once more, to something even more concise.a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.

That was the final definition. And the best organized! And the simplest! So you should be using it... In any case, it doesn't matter. A regulation is the equivalent of a civilian law. ... You CAN'T continue to use the old version.

(hilighting and emphasis mine)

Inappropriate use of jargon is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience, but on its own it doesn't make something pseudoscience. To quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language

*Hammer hits nail on head*

From Wikipedia:

Use of misleading language

• Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.
• Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language


Ufology is batting 1.000 here.

He's demonstrated every single hallmark of pseudoscience that is outlined in that Wikipedia article. What a perfect textbook case!

where is John Albert when you need him?

I was in Los Angeles, busy running around every waking hour of every day. As soon as I got back to the hotel room, I fell into a coma until early the next morning when it was time to get up and run around some more. All my online activity over the last 7 days consisted of contacting people, making plans, and navigating that rat's nest of a highway system.

 

[ufology]

Just because there are a few secret hidden from public knowledge, does that not mean that those secret pertain to alien or whatnot. The "secrets" I have been privy to, and signed NDA, were about technology usable for military, and the other I can see would be about infrastructure, tactic, and so forth. There is nothing extraordinary here and nothing about alien. absolutely nothing.

You are just having your "alien pink glasses" and see everything filtered by your own faith. If you could remove those glasses for a few second , you 'll be welcome to the club. But, no, everything is nefarious, conspiracy, aliens, and secrets. I am quite expecting the MIB to come in at6 some point.

Ha. The usual claim of "they got the tech but sit on it". I saw that for the 200 MPG carburator, the water engine, special electro-magnetic board by that german guy, I see that every day on the free energy board I frequent (mostly for the laugh).

As for your stuff about 50 MPG... Or even 100 MPG or even 200 MPG....

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

I don't think so.

Aepervius

So you're trying to tell me that you know this because you've got the clearance to go into Space Command, NATO, MOD and view whatever files you want? Excuse me for being skeptical about that. You have no evidence in support of your position whatsoever. On the other hand, formerly secret documents have been released both voluntarily and via the FOIA ... huge numbers of them. Do you really think that they don't have more? Do you really think they would let you or I or anyone else waltz in and view them? You're simply in a state of denial.

 

[ufology]

Take me to your reader!

Wudang:

That was relly quite good ! Thanks for interjecting some good clean humor into the thread !

 

[Wudang]

Wudang:

That was relly quite good ! Thanks for interjecting some good clean humor into the thread !

My pleasure. You may find this link useful

 

[RoboTimbo]

Aepervius

So you're trying to tell me that you know this because you've got the clearance to go into Space Command, NATO, MOD and view whatever files you want? Excuse me for being skeptical about that. You have no evidence in support of your position whatsoever. On the other hand, formerly secret documents have been released both voluntarily and via the FOIA ... huge numbers of them. Do you really think that they don't have more? Do you really think they would let you or I or anyone else waltz in and view them? You're simply in a state of denial.

So absence of evidence of documents is evidence of aliens? Can you post anything besides fallacies?

 

[ufology]

... Here's where the definition, which has already been revised twice over the old 1958 definition, gets redefined in 1966 to mean pretty much exactly what the common, up-to-date dictionary definition says it means ...

Mr. Albert:

And here ... as I've pointed out in the past, is where you've done the same as what you accuse me of ( ignoring relevant parts of definitions ). The 1966 revision AFR 80-17 made after Bluebook became essentially a public relations UFO debunking outfit for the purpose of downplaying UFOs, still includes the following statement:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
​

I've reported the above in the past and it has been consistently and self-servbingly ignored. Add to that the fact that when official USAF definitions don't suit you, you cite them as "outdated" but when they seem to suit your needs, they are just fine. Sorry dude but you've just been busted ( again ).

 

[Stray Cat]

Mr. Albert:

And here ... as I've pointed out in the past, is where you've done the same as what you accuse me of ( ignoring relevant parts of definitions ). The 1966 revision AFR 80-17 made after Bluebook became essentially a public relations UFO debunking outfit for the purpose of downplaying UFOs, still includes the following statement:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
​

I've reported the above in the past and it has been consistently and self-servbingly ignored. Add to that the fact that when official USAF definitions don't suit you, you cite them as "outdated" but when they seem to suit your needs, they are just fine. Sorry dude but you've just been busted ( again ).

It wasn't ignored at all. It was pointed out that identifiable lights (such as those listed in your quote) are quite obviously not to be reported as UFOs.

 

[ufology]

So absence of evidence of documents is evidence of aliens? Can you post anything besides fallacies?

Robo:

Nobody is claiming that military secrets prove UFOs are in reality alien craft. The point is that it was claimed with certainty that they don't, and no evidence was offered for that assertion. It is not I who has made a fallacious argument, but the poster who made that statement.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mr. Albert:

And here ... as I've pointed out in the past, is where you've done the same as what you accuse me of ( ignoring relevant parts of definitions ). The 1966 revision AFR 80-17 made after Bluebook became essentially a public relations UFO debunking outfit for the purpose of downplaying UFOs, still includes the following statement:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
​

I've reported the above in the past and it has been consistently and self-servbingly ignored. Add to that the fact that when official USAF definitions don't suit you, you cite them as "outdated" but when they seem to suit your needs, they are just fine. Sorry dude but you've just been busted ( again ).

Not only do you speak fluent Fallacy, you outright lie. You have posted the above several times and each time it has been addressed to the point of tedium. I'll address it again as I have in the past.

"They listed some obvious mundane causes of UFO reports that didn't need to be reported."​

I've asked you before to start posting honestly. When will you be able to start doing that?

 

[Stray Cat]

Robo:

Nobody is claiming that military secrets prove UFOs are in reality alien craft. The point is that it was claimed with certainty that they don't, and no evidence was offered for that assertion. It is not I who has made a fallacious argument, but the poster who made that statement.

It was claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that they do.

Timothy Good seems to think that government files confirm aliens.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

Nobody is claiming that military secrets prove UFOs are in reality alien craft. The point is that it was claimed with certainty that they don't, and no evidence was offered for that assertion. It is not I who has made a fallacious argument, but the poster who made that statement.

You still don't understand the null hypothesis. You were asked to give an example of a daily event where we apply a null hypothesis to show that you did understand it. I see now why you haven't done so. You don't understand the null hypothesis.

So, can you post a link to these secret government documents that show aliens?

 

[ufology]

Not only do you speak fluent Fallacy, you outright lie. You have posted the above several times and each time it has been addressed to the point of tedium. I'll address it again as I have in the past.

Robo:

You've left that section out on purpose to support your position. When you remove all aircraft and "aircraft phenomena" out of sightings of flying objects that appear to be structured craft moving at high speed, you are left with something truly extraordinary ... not simply some "unidentified object"

And as for your constant accusations that I'm lying ... here is the link for everyone to check so they can see that I am not lying:

http://www.nicap.org/afr80-17.htm

See Paragraph 7. a. Guidance in Preparing Reports.

" ... Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

 

[Garrison]

Aepervius

So you're trying to tell me that you know this because you've got the clearance to go into Space Command, NATO, MOD and view whatever files you want? Excuse me for being skeptical about that. You have no evidence in support of your position whatsoever. On the other hand, formerly secret documents have been released both voluntarily and via the FOIA ... huge numbers of them. Do you really think that they don't have more? Do you really think they would let you or I or anyone else waltz in and view them? You're simply in a state of denial.

No they wouldn't you walk in and read them; let some PFC copy them and turn them over to Wikileaks yes. And isn't it odd that amongst the reams of material that have leaked out of the government/military sieve not one word on UFOs? Almost as if no one in the government took the subject seriously.

 

[carlitos]

So, ufology's effort at redefinition isn't going well here; it's not going well at the paracast forum, and he apparently never contacted MUFON to tell them their definition was wrong (or he did and nothing changed). Looks like a one-man effort in futility. Why not just join the real world and debate honestly, using words which mean what they mean? Drop the fallacies, that everyone in the world can see you employ here? Are you attempting reputational suicide via google?

 

[ehcks]

See Paragraph 7. a. Guidance in Preparing Reports.

" ... Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

Right, because when you know it is one of those things, the object isn't unidentified anymore.

When an apparently flying object is unidentified, it is an Unidentified Flying Object. When it is identified as one of the listed things, it is not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

You've left that section out on purpose to support your position. When you remove all aircraft and "aircraft phenomena" out of sightings of flying objects that appear to be structured craft moving at high speed, you are left with something truly extraordinary ... not simply some "unidentified object"

No, you aren't.

And as for your constant accusations that I'm lying ... here is the link for everyone to check so they can see that I am not lying:

http://www.nicap.org/afr80-17.htm

See Paragraph 7. a. Guidance in Preparing Reports.

" ... Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

You were lying about it being ignored. Here are links to just my posts addressing the very thing you're talking about showing that it hasn't been ignored:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7548873#post7548873
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7549705#post7549705
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7554609#post7554609

So when you say it has been ignored, you are lying. If you don't like being accused of lying, don't lie where it can be so easily proved.