UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ehcks]

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."

That's exactly what we're telling you to do! Falsify the null hypothesis!

Either that or stop trolling, because there is absolutely no way you don't understand this yet. You are intentionally being aggravating.

Patience... failing...

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's exactly what we're telling you to do! Falsify the null hypothesis!

Either that or stop trolling, because there is absolutely no way you don't understand this yet. You are intentionally being aggravating.

Patience... failing...

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he is genuinely confused and really doesn't understand.

Can anyone think of a simpler explanation that he could understand?

 

[ufology]

ufology, Your header reads "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" ... bla bla bla

Chuck:

It's not "my header", it's the default header of the thread. I didn't start the thread either. I've also been through the issue of evidence and once again, there is no evidence that can currently be presented that the skeptics here accept as valid. They will only accept scientific evidence ( as if that is the only valid evidence possible ). For evidence that is not scientific I've already suggested some reading material. I'm not going to post it all here.

Consequently, I just talk about issues around the research, like understanding the way the subject is treated by those who have researched it and studied it. If I need some help debunking some bit of video or another story, I'll post it up when I run across it.

 

[John Albert]

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"

Ah, I see.

If it's not an airplane or an airplane-related phenomenon, then by default it must be something truly extraordinary, like a firefly, a squid boat, a smokestack, oil well fire, blimp, flock of geese, weather balloon, kite, Chinese lantern, satellite, cloud formation, entoptic "floaters," a superior mirage, hypnagogia, an hallucination, confabulation, lie, or hoax, or perhaps a few quadrillion other completely ordinary possible scenarios.

 

[ufology]

That's exactly what we're telling you to do! Falsify the null hypothesis!

Either that or stop trolling, because there is absolutely no way you don't understand this yet. You are intentionally being aggravating.

Patience... failing...

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. It's about your fellow skeptic Aepervius stating with certainty that there are no documents indicating an alien presence when he cannot possibly know that. His bias has been proven. If you fail to accept that you are no better.

 

[Marduk]

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. It's about your fellow skeptic Aepervius stating with certainty that there are no documents indicating an alien presence when he cannot possibly know that. His bias has been proven. If you fail to accept that you are no better.

so show us some credible documents that show an alien presence,

 

[Stray Cat]

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. It's about your fellow skeptic Aepervius stating with certainty that there are no documents indicating an alien presence when he cannot possibly know that. His bias has been proven. If you fail to accept that you are no better.

It was an assumption... an assumption however which is supported by the evidence (of released secret documents that never mention alien flying saucers) and the complete lack of evidence to it's contrary.
Therefore it is the null hypothesis which can be presumed to be true until it is falsified.

How does Timothy Good try to falsify the null hypothesis in his book?

 

[ehcks]

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. It's about your fellow skeptic Aepervius stating with certainty that there are no documents indicating an alien presence when he cannot possibly know that. His bias has been proven. If you fail to accept that you are no better.

The subject is UFOs: The Research, the Evidence. Evidence of a UFO being non-mundane, or extraordinary, or alien, would falsify the null hypothesis, and thereby show your hypothesis to be true.

"There are no documents indicating an alien presence" is as close to a true statement as you can get, because you have not yet shown a document indicating an alien presence.

You do not prove a null hypothesis, just as you do not cite common sense in MLA format. You accept it as true and leave it as is until you have evidence proving it wrong. Do you have any?

You are posting in a thread called "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence." Do you have any research? Do you have any evidence? If not, you are the one changing the subject.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe this will be simpler for you to understand, ufology.

Let's say that you believe that some people are actually reptilian aliens but are in disguise. Your hypothesis would be "Some people are reptilian aliens". The null hypothesis would be "No people are reptilian aliens". We've never seen reptilian aliens in human disguise, there is no mechanism for reptilian aliens to be here and disguised as humans. We just assume the null hypothesis to be true. You can never prove the null hypothesis to be true. The null hypothesis is meant to be falsified. That means that you can prove it false. It just takes one confirmed reptilian alien.

Do you see why showing me a person and claiming that they are a reptilian alien and the evidence is that they are disguised as a human isn't really evidence for reptilian aliens? Do you understand who has the burden of proof in that situation? And more importantly, do you understand why?

Ok, your turn. Now you come up with an everyday example of a hypothesis and a null hypothesis so that we'll all know that you really truly understand it.

 

[Resume]

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. It's about your fellow skeptic Aepervius stating with certainty that there are no documents indicating an alien presence when he cannot possibly know that. His bias has been proven. If you fail to accept that you are no better.

Do you have any material evidence in favor of UFOs being alien spacecraft? If you don't, perhaps time to exit stage right.

 

[Paul2]

ufology,

1. do you

or

2. do you not

agree that

A. the function of a null hypothesis is NOT to be proven

B. the function of the null hypothesis is to be falsified

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis.

Yes, that's exactly what this thread is about. The easily falsified null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are mundane in origin"​

has never been falsified. The entire purpose of this thread was about attempting to falsify it. That Rramjet, you, and every other pseudoscientist posting in this thread has failed miserably doesn't change that. That's the purpose of this thread, it's just been a spectacular failure.

The actual purpose of this thread has been to hold the pseudoscientists up as an example of what fallacious thinking looks like as a warning to others on what to avoid. At that, the thread has been a spectacular success. Sometimes, I thought you were a skeptic in disguise, posting textbook examples of fallacies. I didn't think it could be real.

Thanks for your help.

 

[John Albert]

Chuck:

It's not "my header", it's the default header of the thread. I didn't start the thread either. I've also been through the issue of evidence and once again, there are no wild, unsupported claims that the skeptics here will accept as valid. They will only accept scientific actual evidence ( because claims cannot stand as evidence for themselves ). For more unsubstantiated claims that some UFOs are vehicles carrying outer space aliens, I've already suggested some reading material. I'm not going to post it because I've already been warned several times against spamming this forum to promote my own commercial enterprises.

Consequently, I just redefine language to obfuscate reasoned discussion and make words appear to support my own position, like redefining the acronym "UFO" to mean "outer space aliens in a flying saucer" instead of "unidentified flying object". If I need some strangers on the Internet to debunk some videos for me so I can appear knowledgeable and critical-minded on my website without bothering to learn how to think critically for myself, I'll post it up when I run across it and I'm sure some sucker on the JREF Forums will take the bait.

Fixed your post.

 

[Marduk]

How does Timothy Good try to falsify the null hypothesis in his book?

he shifts the burden of proof, redefines common words, rambles on about CT and uses an "expert witness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

 

[TjW]

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.

The fundamental basis of science is just a smokescreen? That's an ... interesting approach to knowledge.
Well, it's trivially true that it isn't proven. By its very nature, it should be shown to be false.

ETA: I see I got here a little late.

 

[ufology]

Ah, I see.

If it's not an airplane or an airplane-related phenomenon, then by default it must be something truly extraordinary, like a firefly, a squid boat, a smokestack, oil well fire, blimp, flock of geese, weather balloon, kite, Chinese lantern, satellite, cloud formation, entoptic "floaters," a superior mirage, hypnagogia, an hallucination, confabulation, lie, or hoax, or perhaps a few quadrillion other completely ordinary possible scenarios.

Mr. Albert:

So let's go back and review a little then. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

================

"The AAF used all of its top scientists to determine whether or not such a phenomenon could, in fact, occur. The research was being conducted with the thought that the flying objects might be a celestial phenomenon, or that they might be a foreign body mechanically devised and controlled. Three weeks later in a preliminary defense estimate, the air force investigation decided that, "This ‘flying saucer’ situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomenon. Something is really flying around."

A further review by the intelligence and technical divisions of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field reached the same conclusion, that "the phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious," that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar," suggesting a controlled craft."

================

So there were people who are highly trained with resources beyond anyone here who were able to investigate using radar, aircraft, and scientists, and came to the above conclusions. Now let's take the essential part:

" ...there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft."
​

Clearly the description above made from multiple observations rules out explanations like fireflies, squid boats, a smokestacks, oil well fires, blimps, flocks of geese, weather balloons, kites, Chinese lanterns, satellites, cloud formations, entoptic floaters, and the other few quadrillion other inane excuses used to deny the reality of such craft.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck:

It's not "my header", it's the default header of the thread. I didn't start the thread either. I've also been through the issue of evidence and once again, there is no evidence that can currently be presented that the skeptics here accept as valid. They will only accept scientific evidence ( as if that is the only valid evidence possible ). For evidence that is not scientific I've already suggested some reading material. I'm not going to post it all here.

Consequently, I just talk about issues around the research, like understanding the way the subject is treated by those who have researched it and studied it. If I need some help debunking some bit of video or another story, I'll post it up when I run across it.

Should read the header, my bad.

Apparently (please correct me if I'm mistaken), you claim this is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, yet you admit you have no scientifically acceptable evidence to corroborate your position. The sum total of all the evidence presented in your posts, and referred to in the numerous books you have listed, consists entirely of eyewitness reports of objects in the sky that people didn't recognize as ordinary phenomenon, and the occasional electromagnetic anomaly.

Regarding the former, eyewitness reports are highly unreliable. I'm no scientist, but I was an investigator for over 25 years, and I know of no other investigator who would disagree.

As to the latter, you haven't even been able to make a compelling circumstantial case that the anomalies could have no other origin than extraterrestrial. You've only made the case that they occurred.

You admit you cannot provide a connective line between "I saw it but I don't know what it was" and "Must be of extraterrestrial origin".

You can't even provide a logical explanation that wouldn't equally fit the position that the sightings and anomalies are caused by ghosts, faeries, angels or Santa Claus.

Does that pretty much define your position, or did I miss something?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Clearly the description above made from multiple observations rules out explanations like fireflies, squid boats, a smokestacks, oil well fires, blimps, flocks of geese, weather balloons, kites, Chinese lanterns, satellites, cloud formations, entoptic floaters, and the other few quadrillion other inane excuses used to deny the reality of such craft.

No, it clearly does no such thing. Can you describe the process they used to eliminate the few quintillion other mundane explanations which they hadn't thought of?

Also, could you address some of the posts regarding the null hypothesis so that we can see that you do understand it?

 

[Marduk]

Now let's take the essential part:

" ...there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft."
​

thats not the essential part, the essential part was that to determine the truth they launched Project Sign which declared negative conclusions in January 1953

so that'll be fictitious then, like your credibility in this thread

 

[Resume]

Now let's take the essential part:

" ...there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft."
​

Clearly the description above made from multiple observations rules out explanations like fireflies, squid boats, a smokestacks, oil well fires, blimps, flocks of geese, weather balloons, kites, Chinese lanterns, satellites, cloud formations, entoptic floaters, and the other few quadrillion other inane excuses used to deny the reality of such craft.

Actually, it does no such thing. That you won't acknowledge the quoted description (anecdote) rules nothing out, and nothing in, reveals much about your beliefs.