UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[edge]

it does if like Edge you grew up watching "the invaders" and not going to science class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders

Acually back then, when they aired, I was more in your mind set.

 

[edge]

Please look at this flashy thingee . . .

They do make mistakes and all intelligent beings in the universe are not infallible.
Unless as I have seen, they are slowly introducing themselves and Ideas to us in this manner so we don’t shoot them out of our skies first.

 

[Marduk]

Acually back then, when they aired, I was more in your mind set.

what, you mean you were involved in a M/s MFf delta poly relationship, I thought you could get hanged for that in Texas

They do make mistakes and all intelligent beings in the universe are not infallible.

ya, but some of them are conceited enough to think that universal law only applies to everyone else

 

[Resume]

They do make mistakes and all intelligent beings in the universe are not infallible.
Unless as I have seen, they are slowly introducing themselves and Ideas to us in this manner so we don’t shoot them out of our skies first.

You didn't look at the flashy thingee did you?

 

[edge]

So, what you are saying here is that the "invaders" are trying to appear as mundane objects like airplanes, balloons, meteors, stars, satellites, etc.? If this is true, how can you tell the difference? What is the difference between UFOs that mimic stars and star that is misperceived as a UFO (this is just like the invisible dragon in the garage!)? Which is more likely?

It depends on what you define that dragon as?
If you are talking about Satan then he has access to your garage, bathroom, and your mind.
Since you are a skeptic and atheist that is likely.
The only dragons I know about live on an island, they are the ones that aren't invisible.
I have seen the watchers that look like stars also, with other witnesses.

In bold above: If they are looking like stars then they know what will happen in some one sees them because we make mistakes.

 

[Archer17]

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.

I've been gone for almost a week and I see you still are bogged down here spinning your tires. Your apparent failure to even grasp the true meaning of 'null hypothesis' by this point surprised me, although maybe it shouldn't of. I'm glad you brought up "believe" - it defines the disconnect between you and practically everyone else here. Belief is irrelevant, a UFO is what it is no matter what any one of us "believes" it to be. The only way for you or I to remove the 'U' is to identify the object in question and that requires irrefutable evidence, nothing less. Where's yours?

Me, I have no claims to qualify, no truths to defend. I'm open to a UFO being ETI-controlled but want to see ET before I buy into it. How's that for logic?
I'd actually love it if ET actually showed up, this planet could use a good kick in the pants.

Here's another "seed" for you (can't hurt to try): Literal, non-critical acceptance of all of the ufological lore actually favors Vallee's inter-dimensional "tricksters" or "djinn," I'm sure someone told you that. Do you believe it? Obviously not. Why not?

 

[Archer17]

It depends on what you define that dragon as?
If you are talking about Satan then he has access to your garage, bathroom, and your mind.
Since you are a skeptic and atheist that is likely.
The only dragons I know about live on an island, they are the ones that aren't invisible.
I have seen the watchers that look like stars also, with other witnesses.

In bold above: If they are looking like stars then they know what will happen in some one sees them because we make mistakes.

Gibberish.

 

[John Albert]

Your right till you see one yourself.
1. There exists an intelligence, of unknown origin and nature,
which is currently carrying out an agenda of experimentation,
manipulation, and/or resource acquisition using the human race,
or certain members thereof, as unwilling subjects.
2. The agenda given in assumption 1 is being carried out with the
use of highly advanced technology.
3. This technology appears to be, at least partially, based on
forms of energy, or energy-matter relationships, which are
currently unknown to, or unacknowledged, by classical physics.

To be mundan is exactly what the invaders would want you to think.

I'm assuming you don't have a single scrap evidence to prove that these "invaders" or their technology even exists, do you? You're in the same boat with UFOlogy in that regard.

Without proof, this sounds like nothing more than the fevered ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[Aepervius]

Gibberish.

Usually when I read such a post as you quoted , I am thinking either "somebody is trying for poetic license" or "he forgot to take his pills" .

 

[ufology]

They aren't "innunendos", they are fully supported by your posts which are constantly showing you don't understand the concept of the null hypothesis.

Stray:

Your assertions are not fully supported. However mine are, with references to both the definition and the innapropriate usage. By contrast, you simply hand wave on the references and definition and proclaim the reverse. If you think you are so right then get the examples I used and explain it rather than making unfounded comments.

 

[Aepervius]

Stray:

Your assertions are not fully supported. However mine are, with references to both the definition and the innapropriate usage. By contrast, you simply hand wave on the references and definition and proclaim the reverse. If you think you are so right then get the examples I used and explain it rather than making unfounded comments.

Did you miss the full post of J Albert with somewhat 20 definition ?

You are just cherry picking to FIT the definition to alien craft, because you are in a dead end without evidence.

Is there a definition for that ? fallacy by dictionary ?

 

[ufology]

Nobody said that, and if you are speaking of my post, you are MISQUOTING it.

Aepervius:

Well then let's just have another look and clear this up then: To quote:

"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."

And here is the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7594327&postcount=12646

I grant that you use the phrase, "The secrets I have been privy to." for the first part, and I'll asume you're telling the truth that you were actually privy to such documents. The part where you went off the rails seems to be here in this part:

"... 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 the question is:

1. Did your use of the word "other" mean the other documents you were not privy to ( as is implied )? If not, please explain.
2. Did your use of the word "here" not also refer to the documents you were not privy to? ( as is implied ). If not, please explain.

 

[John Albert]

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.

Then why don't you quote the post where that was said, instead of indicting the entire community on the statement of a single member?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Aepervius:

Well then let's just have another look and clear this up then: To quote:

"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."

And here is the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7594327&postcount=12646

I grant that you use the phrase, "The secrets I have been privy to." for the first part, and I'll asume you're telling the truth that you were actually privy to such documents. The part where you went off the rails seems to be here in this part:

"... 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 the question is:

1. Did your use of the word "other" mean the other documents you were not privy to ( as is implied )? If not, please explain.
2. Did your use of the word "here" not also refer to the documents you were not privy to? ( as is implied ). If not, please explain.

Because you continue to display your lack of comprehension about the null hypothesis, I'll explain it to you again and try to use an even simpler example. Hopefully one that you aren't emotionally invested in like the others.

Let's say that you believe that a fairy exists in your garden. Your hypothesis is "There is a fairy living in my garden". The null hypothesis would be "There is no fairy living in your garden". Can you see how the null hypothesis is the opposite of the hypothesis? Can you see that the null hypothesis is assumed to be true but can never be proven to be true? If we go look in your garden and don't see a fairy, you will have the excuse that the fairy is hiding whenever anyone looks for it. Do you see how the null hypothesis can be falsifed by the verified existence of just one fairy in your garden? So, you've learned that the null hypothesis can't be proven to be true but is assumed to be so. You've learned that the null hypothesis can be falsified (proven incorrect, thus proving the hypothesis to be true) by the verified existence of just one fairy.

At least, some people have learned that. Please let me know if this example makes sense to you and we can go from there. If you're still unable to comprehend the null hypothesis, don't answer at all so that we'll all know. If you do answer, make sure that your post shows that you can comprehend it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Since you are a skeptic and atheist that is likely.

What evidence do you have that I am an atheist?

 

[John Albert]

Did you miss the full post of J Albert with somewhat 20 definition ?

The post in question was originally made by Puddle Duck. It was his research, not mine. All I did was quote it.

Your assertions are not fully supported. However mine are, with references to both the definition and the innapropriate usage.

Come on, are you really going to continue lying about this, even after it's been proven multiple times that your preferred definition is a disused anachronism over half a century old?

It has been repeatedly shown that your definition is an outdated USAF regulation (AFR 200-2) from 1958 that has been superseded by at least 3 revisions over the following 8 years.

The current official USAF definition of "UFO" reads:

"Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer."​

Sounds like a reasonable definition of an unidentified flying object to me.

Why is it so unreasonable to you?

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius:

Well then let's just have another look and clear this up then: To quote:

"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."

And here is the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7594327&postcount=12646

I grant that you use the phrase, "The secrets I have been privy to." for the first part, and I'll asume you're telling the truth that you were actually privy to such documents. The part where you went off the rails seems to be here in this part:

"... 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 the question is:

1. Did your use of the word "other" mean the other documents you were not privy to ( as is implied )? If not, please explain.
2. Did your use of the word "here" not also refer to the documents you were not privy to? ( as is implied ). If not, please explain.

The whole paragraph is this :
"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. "

It is quite clearly refering to what I was able to see.

But even then, I will go ONE UP and state "the NULL is that there is nothing about alien in those non-revealed documents".

Show us a FOI revelling alien presence and you win. Until then, the null is in place and you have not falsified it .

It stings to have no evidence, right ? That is why you are trying for proof-by-dictionary. Because you are as empty handed as those guy trying to prove god's existence.

 

[ufology]

Can you see that the null hypothesis is assumed to be true but can never be proven to be true? If we go look in your garden and don't see a fairy, you will have the excuse that the fairy is hiding whenever anyone looks for it. Do you see how the null hypothesis can be falsifed by the verified existence of just one fairy in your garden? So, you've learned that the null hypothesis can't be proven to be true but is assumed to be so.

Robo:

The point I'm making is that assuming the null hypothesis is true unless proven false is a mistake. In fact it is the same mistake as the argument from ignorance ( claiming something is true unless it is proven false ). To clarify further:

From Wikipedia:

"If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."
​

So again, the most you can do is reserve judgment and keep doing whatever you're doing until it's proven false. In the quote above the "regime" they were talking about is medication. They aren't assuming their reason for continuing the medication is true, they simply don't have evidence to say it's not, so maintain the status quo. And even if assumption of truth were allowed ( which it's not ), that is still far from claiming it is true with certainty.

So again, I suggest that you get your facts straight before judging other's abilities to understand concepts.

 

[Marduk]

Ufology, do you understand why any scientific claim must be falsifiable or not
a simple yes/no answer will suffice
thanks

 

[Jocce]

To anaswer the above and your other point on the documents. Not only have many documents been released under the FOIA, many were found and not released, therefore proving they have them but they aren't letting us see them.

Where is your evidence that documents confirming alien visits to earth are hidden?

the intent of the screening process, when viewed in its historical context, was to eliminate as many known natural and manmade objects or phenomena as possible.

You are talking about a screening process. Which process is that and what methodology was used? I am not aware of any universal process used to decide when to send in a UFO report.

Simply because later versions don't go into the same detail as earlier versions doesn't mean they wanted to investigate birds, planets, blowing garbage or any other mundane objects any more than they did before.

Of course.

We still know what screening was intended for ... to separate UFOs from every known natural or manmade object or phenomena as much as possible.

And now you lost me...again. How do you go from eliminating the most obvious mundane objects before sending in a report to "therefore all UFO reports ever filed are alien craft"?

And yes we can safely presume the above with 100% confidence. What do you think would happen if a USAF pilot chose to report a blowing piece of tin foil as a UFO and used the excuse, "Well it doesn't say not to report them."

It would be investigated as a UFO sighting, unless the pilot knew it was tinfoil and used that excuse in which case he should be fired for stupidity.

All of these ramblings of yours are just smokescreens and strawmen you use to redefine UFO to mean alien.

Now, if what they were looking for wasn't anything manmade, and it wasn't anything natural, what else could they have been looking for? The only thing left is unnatural and non-manmade ...

...or something mundane that due to weather, light and a number of other factors might be percieved to behave ín an impossible way.

and if we didn't make it who did? The only thing left to conclude is something alien, at least to our experience and understanding. This does not necessitate the inclusion of E.T. but it certainly excludes human civilaztion, and that still makes it alien to us.

Yawn...no. UFOs are still not per definition alien.

Now the other crucial point I'm making is that this doesn't prove that the objects in those reports were actually alien craft. All it proves is what they were looking for were alien craft.

No. It is evidence that they didn't want to investigate any events where a perfectly plausible mundane explanation existed.

Again this speaks to the meaning of the word UFO. It is not and never has been a word that was intended to simply mean what the separate definitions of the words that formed the acronym are defined as. It is a complete misrepresentation to claim that any such definition is accurate. The word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft. It always has and it always will.

No. You're wrong.