• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboTimbo said:
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?
Click to expand...


Robo:

I understand the null hypothesis just fine and we've been through that many times. It's nothing more than a smoke screen. Furthermore, as you know, the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven, so making the claim that it has been proven or is a certainty, is unwarranted and biased.
 
ufology said:
Robo:

I understand the null hypothesis just fine and we've been through that many times. It's nothing more than a smoke screen. Furthermore, as you know, the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven, so making the claim that it has been proven or is a certainty, is unwarranted and biased.
Click to expand...

Daft loon.

The null hypothesis refers to what we know right now. You don't prove that, it is simply assumed true. Your hypothesis is what you think is different from what we know right now. To prove your hypothesis, you disprove the null.

If you want to make a hypothesis that some UFOs are alien craft, your null hypothesis is that all UFOs are of mundane origin. Why is that the null? Because there isn't any reason to assume aliens exist.

You must give evidence of a UFO that is not mundane to disprove that null hypothesis and then prove your own.
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's been ignored because it's an irrelevant, strawman argument.

That addendum was obviously placed there by the UFO researchers to divert the huge number of misidentified domestic aircraft reports from landing on their desks and becoming their own responsibility. Of course they'd want all those things excluded, being as overworked as they were, because if there's a significant chance that a given UFO is really an airplane, then it's probably a waste of their time. Are you really so willfully ignorant that you're incapable of seeing the simple bureaucratic purpose in that?

Nowhere in that paragraph does it define UFOs as paranormal, alien, or non-earthly objects, as you've been wont to do.

The most recent definition from 1966 doesn't fit your dishonest purpose of declaring UFOs as alien spacecraft. That's why you cherry-picked the anachronistic 1958 version.


ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


Another lame strawman? Come on, you're not even trying anymore.

I never proposed we start using old USAF definitions of the acronym "UFO," so I haven't a clue what the hell you're even talking about.


ufology said:
Sorry dude but you've just been busted ( again ).
Click to expand...


Who are you talking to? I'm way over here, behind this big row of strawmen you keep sticking in the middle of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty on case studies then get your hands on some of the NICAP reports by Richard Hall.
Click to expand...
Would that be Richard D Hall, UFO and other high strangness investigator, who has this website? I recall watching his 'Crop Circles, the Hidden Truth' recently. Oh dear.... :boggled:
 
ufology said:
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.
​
Click to expand...
Hang on, so are you now saying that the reason the definition changed between 1958 and 1966 is because of some nasty gummint cover-up aka conspiracy to stop us all finding out about the truth that UFOs = alien spaceships? Because if you are, you are resorting to the last refuge of the conspiracy theorist, that is to say that the reason the evidence isn't there is because it's all been covered up by the PTB of course! :p
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Robo:

I understand the null hypothesis just fine and we've been through that many times. It's nothing more than a smoke screen.
Click to expand...
No, you have proven time and time again that you have absolutely no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is or what its purpose is. That's why you are unable to give an example of one on your own. And why would you call the null hypothesis a smoke screen?

Furthermore, as you know, the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven, so making the claim that it has been proven or is a certainty, is unwarranted and biased.
Click to expand...
As you probably don't know because you have no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is, the null hypothesis is meant to be falsified. It's been explained to you often enough that I can only suppose that it is your dishonesty manifesting itself again. You subscribe to an unfalsifiable null hypothesis which is therefore pseudoscientific. Why would you not want to subscribe to a null hypothesis that is easily falsifiable with just one instance of a verified and confirmed alien? Why are you so against actual evidence?

ETA: And yes, the null hypothesis is biased. Because it reflects reality, the null hypothesis is biased towards reality. Is that why you are so dead set against it?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Robo:

I understand the null hypothesis just fine and we've been through that many times. It's nothing more than a smoke screen. Furthermore, as you know, the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven, so making the claim that it has been proven or is a certainty, is unwarranted and biased.
Click to expand...
Nope, you still don't understand it. If you did, you wouldn't say silly things like "the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven". No **** Sherlock. It's not there to be proven! The null hypothesis exists to be disproven aka falsified by you coming up with rock solid evidence that falsifies it. Which so far, you haven't. Evidence. You got any?

Infinite coin tossing and the butterflies? Remember that one? That might help you to understand the null hypothesis a bit better. :)

ETA: oh b**** to you RoboTimbo you beat me to it! :mad:
 
RoboTimbo said:
You must have a great mind! :)

I was wondering if I really hadn't explained it well but everyone else seems to understand it just fine.
Click to expand...
I really liked the coins turning into butterflies. It created such a beautiful mental image of cascading bright blue butterflies and shiny gold coins that I shall forever remember the use and meaning of the null hypothesis. Thank you. :)
 
23_Tauri said:
I really liked the coins turning into butterflies. It created such a beautiful mental image of cascading bright blue butterflies and shiny gold coins that I shall forever remember the use and meaning of the null hypothesis. Thank you. :)
Click to expand...

I saw Teller of Penn & Teller turn coins into goldfish. It was an incredibly stunning illusion, looked exactly like the goldfish appeared out of nowhere, right out of a cascade of coins Teller was dropping.

Goldfish, gold coins - close, eh?
 
Ach, I'll wait for the day that they turn a UFO into an alien spaceship, then I'll be impressed! :D
 
ufology,
Your header reads "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence", and yet 318 pages later your research has proven only that:

A. Over the years a lot of people have seen something in the sky they couldn't explain.

B. The US military keeps secrets.

As to evidence, you have yet to provide a shred.

Worse (actually much worse), you have been asked repeatedly to provide a logical connective path between "I saw something I couldn't explain" and "Must be of extraterrestrial origin". This connection, obviously, lies at the very core of your position.

Rather than parse definitions endlessly, why don't you take a few minutes and provide said connection.
As it stands right now, all the "research" you've provided makes just as good a case for angelic visitations, faerie sightings, or reports of Santa's magic sleigh.
Time to man up, don't you think?
 
23_Tauri said:
Ach, I'll wait for the day that they turn a UFO into an alien spaceship, then I'll be impressed! :D
Click to expand...

:D

This is OT, but for anyone who's not seen Teller perform the goldfish trick, it's worth seeing. Here's one performance:



I've seen Teller perform it live, and it was impressive. Those are real goldfish! :eye-poppi
 
ufology said:
Robo:

I understand the null hypothesis just fine and we've been through that many times. It's nothing more than a smoke screen. Furthermore, as you know, the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven, so making the claim that it has been proven or is a certainty, is unwarranted and biased.
Click to expand...

Poster-Falling-Down.jpg
 
23_Tauri said:
Nope, you still don't understand it. If you did, you wouldn't say silly things like "the null hypothesis is something that by it's very nature cannot be proven". No **** Sherlock. It's not there to be proven! The null hypothesis exists to be disproven aka falsified by you coming up with rock solid evidence that falsifies it. Which so far, you haven't. Evidence. You got any?

Infinite coin tossing and the butterflies? Remember that one? That might help you to understand the null hypothesis a bit better. :)

ETA: oh b**** to you RoboTimbo you beat me to it! :mad:
Click to expand...


Tauri:

You people just can't face the facts can you? Here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it."

Now here is the quote posted by Aepervius:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7594327&postcount=12646

"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."

So Aepervius asserts boldly that in the "other" information he isn't privy to that there is "absolutely nothing" in the documentation relating to anything alien.


So now I ask:
  • Exactly what part part about the the "null hypothesis can never be proven" are you denying is a valid part of such a hypothesis?
  • What part about stating that "there is absolutely nothing in the documentation relating to anything alien" do you not understand is a statement of certainty and therefore assumes it has been or can be proven?
In the the absence of proof rejecting the null hypothesis, all that one can do is "fail to reject it". In other words remain inconclusive pending evidence that rejects it. To go further and claim with certainty that the null hypothesis has been proven, only proves the bias and such bias has just been proven. If you or anyone else continues to argue that point, you simply prove your own bias as well.

The only out that Aepervius has is to make the claim that his statement, "There is nothing extraordinary here and nothing about alien. absolutely nothing." was actually not referencing the documentation we had been discussing and actually meant here, as in here on this forum. I suggest that you capitalize on this and weasel you way out on the technicality.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Tauri:

You people just can't face the facts can you? Here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it."
Click to expand...
Who are you arguing with? We had to tell you that the null hypothesis can never be proven. You fail to go on to say that we assume the null hypothesis to be true. I'll give you an example:

Your hypothesis is that some flipped coins turn into butterflies on the way down. The null hypothesis would be NOT(some flipped coins turn into butterflies) or, more simply, No flipped coins turn into butterflies.

Do you see why that null hypothesis can never be proved to be true but is assumed to be true? It can never be proved to be true because you can never observe all flipped coins to see that they haven't turned into butterflies. The null hypothesis is meant to be falsified. It would only take one confirmed instance of a coin turning into a butterfly to falsify the null hypothesis, validating the hypothesis.

I've really simpled it down so that you can understand it. Where exactly are you still confused about it?

bla bla bla
Click to expand...
Do you understand why we assume the null hypothesis to be true?
 
Last edited:
Ufology; With every post you make on this you are simply showing more and more that you have no understanding of the null hypothesis, even though it's been explained to you in many ways over many pages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom