UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

Aepervius,

Or unless the object itself gave off a glow ... which it did ... perhaps it ionized the air around it as well, the bright white of the core object and the distance might have made the purple color less distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow

But apart from that, what makes you so sure [* blah blah blah... *]

Who cares? What exactly, objectively, makes your alleged alien sighting any different than any other supposed sighting that turned out to be a hoax, other than, of course, you haven't admitted that your story is a hoax?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

Yes ... thank you very much for proving my point.

For our readers reference see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632354&postcount=13915 in which Robo quotes my post and changes it to suit himself while making use of all the non-constructive tactics mentioned within.

folog,

Yes ... you are very welcome for the corrections to your whining.

For reference, see the posts where folog was asked for his Top 10 list of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) as Alien Space Ships (ASSes) and the evidence that falsified the null hypothesis justifying his seemingly irrational belief system.

Perhaps, folog, you could give a link to your answer to those many requests?

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius,

Or unless the object itself gave off a glow ... which it did ... perhaps it ionized the air around it as well, the bright white of the core object and the distance might have made the purple color less distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow

But apart from that, what makes you so sure there wasn't a lot of water vapor in the air. This was over a forest by a lake in the early morning. And what makes you think that changing the elements to suit your own hypothesis makes your point valid? How it created the glow, or even whether or not there was a glow isn't relevant to the point about it going down behind the trees on the other side of the lake. You've simply claimed that the glow isn't possible, ignored the part about it going down behind the trees and stamped "firefly" on the case ... that's hardly logical or skeptical. Lastly, you are also ignoring the possibility that I am right about the object being an alien craft ... and therefore our simplistic attempts at explaining it are simply innadequate. The truth is, I don't know how it created the glow around it. It just did, and just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

300 meter. That is why. Funnily you made your UFO glow blue. Now it is purple. Not the same. Wanna change your story again ? Anyway you are the one with the postive claim, you are the one which need to provide evidence. I have only have to provide a MUNDANE explanation, which is plausible. And tada.

 

[ufology]

You do know it's dishonest to blame the skeptics for your own failure to support your claim, don't you?

And exactly what is it about your alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively any different than a hoax?

Hey There Gee

I'm not blamaing the skeptics my "failure to support my claim". I've acknowledeged several times that it is perfectly reasonable for them to doubt my story. What I blame them for is their unconstructive, pseudoskeptical adversarial appraoch.

What is it about your alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively any different than a hoax? First of all, failure to disprove something is a hoax does not prove that it is a hoax. That would be an argument from ignorance. As for what makes my account objectively different from proven hoaxes is that there is no sufficient evidence that I've perpetrated a hoax. All attempts so far have relied strictly on proclamations, changing my story, or misrepresenting my position.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey There Gee

I'm not blamaing the skeptics my "failure to support my claim". I've acknowledeged several times that it is perfectly reasonable for them to doubt my story. What I blame them for is their unconstructive, pseudoskeptical adversarial appraoch.

What is it about your alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively any different than a hoax? First of all, failure to disprove something is a hoax does not prove that it is a hoax. That would be an argument from ignorance. As for what makes my account objectively different from proven hoaxes is that there is no sufficient evidence that I've perpetrated a hoax. All attempts so far have relied strictly on proclamations, changing my story, or misrepresenting my position.

Look up the word "objectively" before using it in a sentence incorretly again.

Every time you post you provide more evidence for ufology's VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax.

How about that Top 10 List of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) as Alien Space Ships (ASSes) and the evidence that falsifies the null hypothesis which would justify your irrational belief system?

 

[Garrison]

All attempts so far have relied strictly on proclamations, changing my story, or misrepresenting my position.

You have changed your story, you can call it what you like but that is what it amounts to and we know what your position is, you saw an alien spacecraft and you will do whatever it takes by way of editing and adding details to rule all plausible mundane explanations.

 

[ufology]

You have changed your story, you can call it what you like but that is what it amounts to and we know what your position is, you saw an alien spacecraft and you will do whatever it takes by way of editing and adding details to rule all plausible mundane explanations.

Garrison,

There you go misrepresenting my position again and making more proclamations. Even if you exclude the added details not included in my original text, you would still have to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena.

 

[carlitos]

...

Perhaps you've never watched cars on a dark road bounded by trees from a distance? As a car moves past each tree, light gets brighter, and as it moves behind them it gets dimmer. The flickering effect and the way the light filters out from behind them gives you cues for the density of the trees and direction of movement. You have no doubt that the car and the road are behind the trees or which way the car is moving. You also don't have to see all of each individual tree to know what's going on. This effect can be seen from much farther than 3Km.

Similarly, as the object approached the treetops and began going down into the forest, the jagged edges formed by the pointed tops of the trees created an outline and texture so that you could make out the density without having to see all of each tree or the small details. And as it descended below the tops, you could see the light filtering out from behind the trunks and branches. No special abilities are required.

Indeed. Very similarly.

Aepervius,

Or unless the object itself gave off a glow ... which it did ... perhaps it ionized the air around it as well, the bright white of the core object and the distance might have made the purple color less distinct.

...
** Of course, we can't forget that the "glowing orb" is central to religious visions of all types, from Saint Paul's vision to Our Lady of Fatima to the Nation of Islam, not to mention the various Hindu gods, wacko cults and theosophy. Of course, J Randall Murphy will ignore and/or pretend not to understand this parallel, due to his own religious conviction. (or he may play the martyr again, another concept central to religious belief in the west)

...
Does anyone here see how his LOGIC is different from believers in the various phenomena that I listed?




ufology, you just hand-wave away religion or bigfoot as "not enough anecdotal evidence" or "off topic," but you haven't once shown how your logical process of back-fitting facts to fit your predetermined conclusion of "alien craft" (which is pseudoscience^TM) is different from the logic of other true believers. Why not give it an honest try? It could help us with the research, the evidence, for UFOs.

Oops - I failed to include "dishonestly play the martyr" in my guesses as to which intellectually dishonest reply you would make.

So, again you failed to explain how your "I know what I saw" is different from virgin of guadalupe-witnesses' "I know what I saw" or bigfoot believers' "I know what I saw." You already have the martyr complex down, so I'll leave out the jesus stuff.

....

What is that, like the eighth time he's dodged my question?

... He will dishonestly fail to explain how his logic differs from believers in religious, bigfoot and other faith-based believers. As he has since he arrived. Some honesty would go a long way in "building bridges" - his claimed reason for joining here. More lies, obfuscation, or more likely, pretending not to understand / even see this post will follow.

Lame attempt at dodging a good point from Carlitos. Now that you got your queer practice of addressing no one in particular out of the way (at least it wasn't "dear readers" this time) kindly explain how your faith-based belief-system (UFO=Alien Craft) differs from those other faith-based belief systems that claim the 'wee folk' or Bigfoot (to name a couple) walk among us.
...

Mr. Albert

How about addressing the argument rather than the arguer.

Indeed. How about it, ufology?

 

[carlitos]

Garrison,

There you go misrepresenting my position again and making more proclamations. Even if you exclude the added details not included in my original text, you would still have to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena.

What process did you use to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison,

There you go misrepresenting my position again and making more proclamations. Even if you exclude the added details not included in my original text, you would still have to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena.

Why? The null hypothesis which is

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation you choose, we know they exist. Which mundane explanation would you choose for your sighting? The most likely is hoax because of the repeated embellishments you've made to your story but it doesn't really matter which you choose.

If you understood the null hypothesis, this wouldn't need to be explained to you each and every time.

 

[carlitos]

I'm sorry, but "ionized air glow" is up there with "anti-gravity cloaking mechanism." JR really is just writing bad science fiction here. We should just ignore him unless he agrees to honestly answer a direct question.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufolo,

Can you think of any way that the null hypothesis could be explained to you so that you'd be able to comprehend it? I appreciate that you would like cooperation between you and the skeptics so I'm willing to meet you half way.

You tell me how simple it needs to be for your comprehension and I'll see if I can simple it down that much for you.

 

[Garrison]

Garrison,

There you go misrepresenting my position again and making more proclamations. Even if you exclude the added details not included in my original text, you would still have to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena.

You are kidding right? Your original claim has no worth, you cannot substantiate one bit of it, so you cannot exclude any mundane explanation.

 

[GeeMack]

There you go misrepresenting my position again and making more proclamations. Even if you exclude the added details not included in my original text, you would still have to rule out all known natural or manmade phenomena.

Huh? Are you serious? After all this time you still think it's other people's responsibility to support your claim. That's ridiculous, not to mention dishonest.

You've made a claim that aliens exist and that they are cruising about in the skies of Earth. You've made an unambiguous claim that you saw at least one. You haven't provided a single iota of objective support for your claim. No evidence. No research. Remember, the stuff that this thread used to be about before you arrived and started laying out your hoax?

All the research done here has been done by these helpful skeptics, the maps, the elevation views, the correction of your contradictions and errors with things like the music you were supposedly listening to when you supposedly saw this alleged thing. Your modification of everyone else's research isn't to make your tale more precise. It's to make it more believable to you. Your alleged alien sighting is nothing but incredible anecdotes cobbled together with duct tape and spit. And you change them on a whim to try to get around repeatedly being caught in contradictions and, shall we say, less than truthful comments?

Now you have the audacity to say other people have to rule out all known natural or man made phenomena? No, sir, not in the least little bit. You have to rule out all conceivable explanations besides the alien craft story, which, as we know, is an impossible task. Either that or you have to provide objective evidence to support your claim, which appears to be an equally impossible task.

Make no mistake about this: None of the cooperative helpful skeptics believes you saw aliens. Most of them consider the possibility that you invented the whole thing to be a reasonable explanation. Your effort has failed.

 

[Paulhoff]

UFO

Religion

Same Same

Paul

 

[ufology]

ufolo,

Can you think of any way that the null hypothesis could be explained to you so that you'd be able to comprehend it?

Robo,

I don't know ... Is there one for you? What part about "failure to disprove the null hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis" don't you get? It's an argument from ignorance and just because you refuse to accept that doesn't mean I don't understand. And your premise that it's OK to assume it's been proven is not backed by any practise anyplace. The most you can do is reserve judgment and not change your routine of disbelieving cases that are not backed up by sufficient evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

I don't know ... Is there one for you?

Yes, if you would provide an example from everyday life where we use a null hypothesis, that would aid my understanding. I've asked you for it dozens of times and you've failed to provide it every time.

What part about "failure to disprove the null hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis" don't you get?

You should probably stop while you're behind. You've already proved that you don't comprehend the null hypothesis, you don't need to rub salt into your own open wound.

It's an argument from ignorance and just because you refuse to accept that doesn't mean I don't understand.

That you think it's an argument from ignorance proves that you don't understand it. Are you sure you don't want to stop while you're so far behind?

And your premise that it's OK to assume it's been proven is not backed by any practise anyplace. The most you can do is reserve judgment and not change your routine of disbelieving cases that are not backed up by sufficient evidence.

Again, nobody assumes it's been proven, we assume that it is true. Do you think that might be the crux of your inability to comprehend the null hypothesis? Here, I'll give you an example.

Let's say that your hypothesis is that some flipped coins turn into butterflies on the way down. Nobody has ever seen a coin turn into a butterfly. There is no mechanism for flipped coins to turn into butterflies. Your hypothesis then is:

"Some flipped coins turn into butterflies"

The null hypothesis would then be:

"No coins turn into butterflies"

Can you see that the null hypothesis can never be proved to be true? It's purpose is to be falsified. Do you see how just one coin turning into a butterfly would falsify the null hypothesis? But because you can never observe all coins, you can never prove the null hypothesis. Do you believe that no coins turn into butterflies? Or do you believe that some coins turn into butterflies?

Does that help with your comprehension of what a null hypothesis is and why it is assumed to be true, can never be proved to be true, and is meant to be falsified?

Now, you give me an example from everyday life where we use a null hypothesis to show that you do understand it. Right now, it seems that you are incapable of comprehension.

 

[Garrison]

Robo,

I don't know ... Is there one for you? What part about "failure to disprove the null hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis" don't you get? It's an argument from ignorance and just because you refuse to accept that doesn't mean I don't understand. And your premise that it's OK to assume it's been proven is not backed by any practise anyplace. The most you can do is reserve judgment and not change your routine of disbelieving cases that are not backed up by sufficient evidence.

Actually your own statements show clearly that you don't understand; the null hypothesis is there to be disproven. It is the default assumption and as such does not require proving, no one id going to try to prove it, it is entirely up to those who disagree with it to provide evidence that it is false; which you have utterly failed to do, simply offering up your unsubstantiated claims and editing them every time a flaw is pointed out.

 

[Garrison]

Yes, if you would provide an example from everyday life where we use a null hypothesis, that would aid my understanding. I've asked you for it dozens of times and you've failed to provide it every time.


You should probably stop while you're behind. You've already proved that you don't comprehend the null hypothesis, you don't need to rub salt into your own open wound.


That you think it's an argument from ignorance proves that you don't understand it. Are you sure you don't want to stop while you're so far behind?


Again, nobody assumes it's been proven, we assume that it is true. Do you think that might be the crux of your inability to comprehend the null hypothesis? Here, I'll give you an example.

Let's say that your hypothesis is that some flipped coins turn into butterflies on the way down. Nobody has ever seen a coin turn into a butterfly. There is no mechanism for flipped coins to turn into butterflies. Your hypothesis then is:

"Some flipped coins turn into butterflies"

The null hypothesis would then be:

"No coins turn into butterflies"

Can you see that the null hypothesis can never be proved to be true? It's purpose is to be falsified. Do you see how just one coin turning into a butterfly would falsify the null hypothesis? But because you can never observe all coins, you can never prove the null hypothesis. Do you believe that no coins turn into butterflies? Or do you believe that some coins turn into butterflies?

Does that help with your comprehension of what a null hypothesis is and why it is assumed to be true, can never be proved to be true, and is meant to be falsified?

Now, you give me an example from everyday life where we use a null hypothesis to show that you do understand it. Right now, it seems that you are incapable of comprehension.

How about 'there are no white crows' as a null hypothesis? Counting a million black crows still wouldn't prove it, finding one white one instantly disproves it but unless that white crow turns up the null hypothesis remains there are no white crows.

 

[GeeMack]

Robo,

I don't know ... Is there one for you? What part about "failure to disprove the null hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis" don't you get?

And you thereby demonstrate unequivocally that you do not understand the concept and purpose of the null hypothesis.

It's an argument from ignorance [...]

No, it's not. Apparently your understanding of that particular logical fallacy is at the same level of your understanding of the null hypothesis.

[...] and just because you refuse to accept that doesn't mean I don't understand.

No. It is demonstrably true that you don't understand.

And your premise that it's OK to assume it's been proven is not backed by any practise anyplace.

And again you demonstrate that you don't understand the null hypothesis and how you actually create it at the point that you make your claim to have seen aliens.

The most you can do is reserve judgment and not change your routine of disbelieving cases that are not backed up by sufficient evidence.

And here again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the skeptical position. There's a subtle but very distinct difference between "I don't believe aliens exist," and "I believe aliens don't exist." That you should persistently attribute the incorrect one of those positions to the helpful cooperative skeptics shows either a serious lack of understanding the skeptical stance or abject dishonesty.