UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

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.

Robo,

I pointed out Wikipedia article on the Null Hypothesis, the world's most everyday reference. I pointed out how based on that article, the use of a null hypothesis in ufology is a poor way of looking at the issue, and I pointed out the most common examples ( the coin toss and blind testing ) as described in the article several times, so your assertion that I've never provided a reference or an example is unfounded.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

That's way too advanced for ufology's comprehension. Can you simple it down for him?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

I pointed out Wikipedia article on the Null Hypothesis, the world's most everyday reference.

And in the same post you proved that you had no comprehension of what the Wikipedia article was telling you.

I pointed out how based on that article, the use of a null hypothesis in ufology is a poor way of looking at the issue,

Which is an absolutely idiotic way to look at it. The null hypothesis for UFOlogy works extremely well. The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

would need to be falsified by just one confirmed alien. Why would you not want to do that?

and I pointed out the most common examples ( the coin toss and blind testing ) as described in the article several times, so your assertion that I've never provided a reference or an example is unfounded.

No, I want you to make up your own example to show your comprehension. You've already proved that you can parrot Wikipedia articles without an ounce of comprehension.

What example can you think of? I can think of hundreds.

 

[ufology]

And you thereby demonstrate unequivocally that you do not understand ... bla bla bla

So GeeMack ...

You still don't believe these two quotes are correct then?

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

Wikipedia:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).

Wikipedia:

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.

For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis).

========

Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as assuming it is true. So you people really should wrap your heads around this before accusing me of not understanding the concepts.

 

[Drs_Res]

Third Fifth Sixth Seventh time is a charm I hope.

Since this seems to have been missed ignored, I'll repost this:

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I don't think I could do that with any real accuracy on the scale of the picture I posted because the picture is too small. The relative size of the object to the trees as it neared them and landed behind them gave clues as to it's size. In this picture I can't really get that across accurately. Maybe if the image was the size of a picture window, like what human perception sees, but that's just way too big to post here and nobody has a monitor that big anyway. When I get more time I'll create an illustration that is larger and closer and in scale. About the only thing you could do is imagine a sphere of light about 15 feet wide. Note that in the illustration, this was just before the object departed and it had gotten much brighter, so the core size seems larger because of that.

The reason that I asked for something close to scale for the core on this picture is because you said earlier that this was a good representation of what you saw. I was trying to picture how much of the "Object" labeled UFO was core vs. glow in that picture. Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And this:

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And another question for you, whilst you're answering Drs_Res's question if you will, <SNIP>. At any time during the sightings (night or early morning) could you see the reflection of the orb / light / UFO / shiny thing in the lake?

Edited by Locknar: 

Politeness Man throws his Stainless Steel handkerchief; name calling is never civil/polite.... Post <SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 0.

BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So GeeMack ...


bla bla bla lying by omission

So, folo, you've left out the bit that I had to chastise you before for leaving out:

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."

Now, give your example from everyday life so that everyone can see that you either do or don't comprehend the null hypothesis. Right now, the null hypothesis is:

"ufology has no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is"​

and it's never been falsified.

 

[ufology]

Third Fifth Sixth Seventh time is a charm I hope.

Since this seems to have been missed ignored, I'll repost this:




And this:



BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I answered this already. You must have missed it. I said that I couldn't do it acurately given the small size of the picture and that I would create another picture to give you an idea of the core object, I also mentioned that claculations made by a contributing poster would have made the apparent size about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter to the naked eye at the distance I was at. Here again is my illustration showing the size of the core object with a much smaller glow if it were seen much closer.

Here is the last time I posted all the available graphics:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632085&postcount=13898

I hope that helps.

 

[Garrison]

Drs_Res

I answered this already. You must have missed it. I said that I couldn't do it acurately given the small size of the picture and that I would create another picture to give you an idea of the core object, I also mentioned that claculations made by a contributing poster would have made the apparent size about 8-9 time the apparent size of Jupiter to the naked eye. Here again is my illustration showing the size of the core object with a much smaller glow.

[qimg]http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/BlueSphere-01A.png[/qimg]

Here is the last time I posted all the available graphics:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632085&postcount=13898

I hope that helps.

What is reposting your photoshopping effort supposed to prove? it's simply a fantasy you've painted to add some visual appeal to your story.

 

[ufology]

What is reposting your photoshopping effort supposed to prove? it's simply a fantasy you've painted to add some visual appeal to your story.

Garrison,

Nobody says it "proves" anything. What it does is convey a description via illustration. Therefore it is not a "fantasy". Please stop with your prejudicial, judgmental proclamations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

logy,

Have you yet thought of a way that anyone could explain the null hypothesis in a way that you could comprehend? I have to admit that I find myself baffled. I've never met anyone who was so unable to grasp a concept that has been explained so thoroughly so many times.

I'll give you another example and see if you can derive any understanding from it.

Let's say that you believe that a fairy lives at the bottom of 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"

Do you see why your hypothesis can never be falsified? You could always claim that the fairy is hiding when we look and don't find it.

Do you see that the null hypothesis can never be proved? Do you see how the null hypothesis could be easily falsified by presenting the fairy for inspection?

folo, do you believe that:

1. A fairy lives at the bottom of your garden?

or

2. No fairy lives at the bottom of your garden?

Does this help you at all?

 

[Garrison]

Garrison,

Nobody says it "proves" anything. What it does is convey a description via illustration. Therefore it is not a "fantasy". Please stop with your prejudicial, judgmental proclamations.

It does nothing of the sort. By your own admission you were never in a position to see any such things, it's pure imagination on your part, and if you don't want people to be judgemental then why on earth are you posting here? If I have a prejudice its in favour of facts and evidence, those things that you have consistently failed to provide.

 

[23_Tauri]

Here, put these on and see if he notices you:

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Antennae.jpg[/qimg]​

Worth a try....

 

[Drs_Res]

Third Fifth Sixth Seventh time is a charm I hope.

Since this seems to have been missed ignored, I'll repost this:




And this:



BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I answered this already. You must have missed it. I said that I couldn't do it acurately given the small size of the picture and that I would create another picture to give you an idea of the core object, I also mentioned that claculations made by a contributing poster would have made the apparent size about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter to the naked eye at the distance I was at. Here again is my illustration showing the size of the core object with a much smaller glow if it were seen much closer.

Here is the last time I posted all the available graphics:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632085&postcount=13898

I hope that helps.

Not really, no. You missed the questions. I'll pull them out of the quotes for you, but first off, you will note that I quoted that answer in my post, so yes I saw that. You ignored all of the questions.

This part of my post:

The reason that I asked for something close to scale for the core on this picture is because you said earlier that this was a good representation of what you saw. I was trying to picture how much of the "Object" labeled UFO was core vs. glow in that picture.

Was of course related to this picture. It was an explanation of why I had asked a prior question.

The first question also relates to ^^ that^^ picture:

Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

The second question:

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

The last question that was from 23_Tauri:

And another question for you, whilst you're answering Drs_Res's question if you will, <SNIP>. At any time during the sightings (night or early morning) could you see the reflection of the orb / light / UFO / shiny thing in the lake?

This of course is NOT a question:

BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.

 

[GeeMack]

So GeeMack ...

You still don't believe these two quotes are correct then?

I believe they are correct. But then I understand how they apply. You don't. Follow along slowly...

Wikipedia:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).

How many times do we need to explain the ultra simple concept of the null hypothesis? It is not for proving. It is for falsifying. The null hypothesis is not the claim. You made the claim that some UFOs are aliens, and when you did, the null hypothesis sprang into being. Again, the null hypothesis is not the claim, so this irrelevant nonsense about an argument from ignorance does not apply here.

Wikipedia:

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.

For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis).

Yes, it says exactly that the null hypothesis can never be proven. It isn't for proving. It is for falsifying. When you make the claim, as you have, that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft, you create the null hypothesis. You create it. The null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

It is precisely because you make the claim that some UFOs are alien craft that it even exists. You falsify it to prove your claim true. It is a component of your claim.

Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as assuming it is true. So you people really should wrap your heads around this before accusing me of not understanding the concepts.

The null hypothesis is not so much assumed true as it is accepted as the default position at the point when you make the claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft. And you made that claim. And when you did, lo and behold, the null hypothesis came into being. It is there for the very purpose of making it as easy as humanly possible for you to demonstrate the truth of your claim. It is exactly the result of helpful cooperative skeptics doing everything in their power to clear a path for you, to help you prove that aliens exist. But until you are able to falsify it, your claim will continue to be rejected.

So really, you should really actually understand the concept, origin, and purpose of the null hypothesis before you continue to lecture people about when it does and does not apply. We understand it. You simply do not.

 

[ufology]

logy,

Have you yet thought of a way that anyone could explain the null hypothesis in a way that you could comprehend? I have to admit that I find myself baffled. I've never met anyone who was so unable to grasp a concept that has been explained so thoroughly so many times.

I'll give you another example and see if you can derive any understanding from it.

Let's say that you believe that a fairy lives at the bottom of 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"

Do you see why your hypothesis can never be falsified? You could always claim that the fairy is hiding when we look and don't find it.

Do you see that the null hypothesis can never be proved? Do you see how the null hypothesis could be easily falsified by presenting the fairy for inspection?

folo, do you believe that:

1. A fairy lives at the bottom of your garden?

or

2. No fairy lives at the bottom of your garden?

Does this help you at all?

Robo,

First of all you are presuming my position relates to an unfalsifiable null hypothesis. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't use the null hypothesis because it is ill suited to the study of ufology. I merely entertain your use of the null hypothesis for the sake of discussion.

Secondly, the rest of your illustration is fine up to the point where you ask the questions. However the question of belief implies a conclusion for the null hypothesis, something the null hypothesis does not allow.

To use your analogy, in the absence of sufficient evidence for a fairy living in your Garden, you would neither believe there is nor believe there isn't a fairy living in your garden, and simply tend your garden as usual. This analogy corresponds exactly to the usual outcome of blind tests for medicine in which no significant statistical result is found. Where there is no certainty that the medication works or doesn't work, there is no point in changing the existing regimen.

Where you and the others here are going off the rails is assuming that because your null hypothesis has not been proven false, it is therefore true ( agument from ignorance ).

As applied to UFOs, simply because there is insifficient evidence to prove UFOs ( alien craft ) have been observed is not proof that they have not been observed. Without being biased, the best you can do in the absence of sufficient evidence to falsify your null hypothesis is reserve judgment pending falsification and go about your day as usual.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

First of all you are presuming my position relates to an unfalsifiable null hypothesis.

No, you are proving that your position relates to an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Your unfalsifiable hypothesis of "Some UFOs are alien in origin" creates the falsifiable null hypothesis of "All UFOs are of mundane origin". You've created it yourself.

I've done nothing of the sort. I don't use the null hypothesis because it is ill suited to the study of ufology. I merely entertain your use of the null hypothesis for the sake of discussion.

Well, no. You don't subscribe to the concept of a null hypothesis because you are unable to comprehend it.

Secondly, the rest of your illustration is fine up to the point where you ask the questions. However the question of belief implies a conclusion for the null hypothesis, something the null hypothesis does not allow.

Your belief allows for belief. You believe in aliens and your hypothesis is "Some UFOs are alien in origin". The null hypothesis would cause you nightmares if you understood it.

To use your analogy, in the absence of sufficient evidence for a fairy living in your Garden, you would neither believe there is nor believe there isn't a fairy living in your garden, and simply tend your garden as usual. This analogy corresponds exactly to the usual outcome of blind tests for medicine in which no significant statistical result is found. Where there is no certainty that the medication works or doesn't work, there is no point in changing the existing regimen.

No, it would be idiotic to believe a fairy lived in the garden. What other idiotic things do you believe are reasonable to believe in?

Where you and the others here are going off the rails is assuming that because your null hypothesis has not been proven false, it is therefore true ( agument from ignorance ).

You can't say I didn't warn you about stopping while you were so far behind. You don't need to prove that you can't comprehend a null hypothesis anymore. It is assumed to be true.

As applied to UFOs, simply because there is insifficient evidence to prove UFOs ( alien craft ) have been observed is not proof that they have not been observed. Without being biased, the best you can do in the absence of sufficient evidence to falsify your null hypothesis is reserve judgment pending falsification and go about your day as usual.

And yet, despite there being no evidence for it, you've put the words "alien craft" in parentheses after an unrelated term, "UFO" (Unidentified Firefly Object).

Because no UFOs have ever been shown to be alien in origin, the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are mundane in origin"​

has never been falsified. The irrational belief that they are is simply another religion-like belief system.

uf, I really think you should give your own example from every day life of a null hypothesis to show that you understand the concept. So far, all the evidence supports the default position of the null hypothesis:

"ufology has no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is"​

 

[Garrison]

Robo,

First of all you are presuming my position relates to an unfalsifiable null hypothesis. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't use the null hypothesis because it is ill suited to the study of ufology.

Which simply demonstrates why Ufology the subject and Ufology the poster can't be taken seriously. You want special treatment, exemption from the need to provide meaningful proof for outrageous claims while at the same time reserving the right to denounce those who try to hold you to that basic standard.

 

[ufology]

Not really, no. You missed the questions.

Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

Thanks.

Again the entire object with the glow is about right, but
I was not able to isolate the core object in the illustration
below because the picture is too small. On the picture
below, the core object would only be a point. Even at
full scale it was only about 8-9 times the appeant size of
Jupiter. But with the glow around it, it looked much larger.

Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
to the issue of what made the craft seem to me to be
of alien origin. It is the way it moved. If it were the
size of a greyhound bus or a basketball makes no
difference. In the illustration, I watched it rise up out
of the forest marked LZ to where it is pictured hovering.
It turned bright white and went from that point north
up the valley as far as was visible ( over 25Km ), in
about 1 second, leaving a streak of light in its wake. I
was outside looking straight over at it. The lighting was
also a bit dimmer than illustrated.

 

[Resume]

Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
to the issue of what made the craft seem to me to be
of alien origin. It is the way it moved. If it were the
size of a greyhound bus or a basketball makes no
difference.

Of course the size is relevant. What if it was the size of a firefly as viewed through a picture window? What then?

 

[Garrison]

Again the entire object with the glow is about right, but
I was not able to isolate the core object in the illustration
below because the picture is too small. On the picture
below, the core object would only be a point. Even at
full scale it was only about 8-9 times the appeant size of
Jupiter. But with the glow around it, it looked much larger.

[qimg]http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png[/qimg]

Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
to the issue of what made the craft seem to me to be
of alien origin. It is the way it moved. If it were the
size of a greyhound bus or a basketball makes no
difference. In the illustration, I watched it rise up out
of the forest marked LZ to where it is pictured hovering.
It turned bright white and went from that point north
up the valley as far as was visible ( over 25Km ), in
about 1 second, leaving a streak of light in its wake. I
was outside looking straight over at it. The lighting was
also a bit dimmer than illustrated.

And it's still just a story, an increasingly edited and redrafted one at that. The above is your claim Ufology, what I think posters here would like is some evidence to go with it. If you have none what are you doing in this thread?