UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant to the issue

LOL.

The null hypothesis is that:

"All UFOs are mundane in origin"​

including this one. Which do you think is the more likely mundane explanation, that it was a Greyhound bus or that it was a firefly ( UFO )?

 

[ufology]

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.

Robo,

I don't use the null hypothesis so you've mirepresented me there and you went on to substitute fairies for ufos ( straw man ), then blamed me for using your own analogy to illustrate where you went wrong, then rejected the objective information provided by Wikipedia, substituting your own biased viewpoint and proclaiming based on your misrepresentations, bias and ignorance of the objective information that I'm wrong. You do this so regularly and you ignore my pleas for reason so consistently, that I am at a loss as to how to proceed in further discussion with you.

 

[ufology]

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?

Garrison,

We've discussed this before. I am a firsthand witness. My written testimony is evidence. I was also asked for it. Now go ahead and move the goalposts because I know that's what you always do.

 

[Resume]

Garrison,

We've discussed this before. I am a firsthand witness. My written testimony is evidence.

It's a claim. For which you need to provide corroborative evidence. Of which you have none.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

I don't use the null hypothesis so you've mirepresented me there

No, you've misrepresented my position. You created the null hypothesis when you formulated your hypothesis. You simply don't comprehend it.

and you went on to substitute fairies for ufos ( straw man ),

LOL. No, I was attempting to get you to comprehend the concept of a null hypothesis illustrated with that example. You should really stop misusing logical fallacy terms which you don't understand any better than the concept of a null hypothesis.

then blamed me for using your own analogy to illustrate where you went wrong,

No, I blamed you for not being able to comprehend the null hypothesis when you demonstrated that you can't comprehend the null hypothesis. I asked you to provide your own example to show that you did understand it but I see you've failed to ever be able to do so.

then rejected the objective information provided by Wikipedia,

LOL. No, I rejected your ignorance in interpreting the article and your dishonest misrepresentation of the article with your dishonest lying by omission. I provided the sentence that you selectively left out.

substituting your own biased viewpoint and proclaiming based on your misrepresentations, bias and ignorance of the objective information that I'm wrong.

LOL. Well, no. I provided the sentence that you dishonestly left out of the Wikipedia article. You're wrong because you're wrong. I can't help that.

You do this so regularly and you ignore my pleas for reason so consistently, that I am at a loss as to how to proceed in further discussion with you.

LOL. You might try providing your own example of a null hypothesis in action so that everyone can see that you understand the concept. You might try comprehending what people are trying to tell you. You might try being honest when you cite articles and definitions.

Is there a reason that you haven't been trying to do those things?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison,

We've discussed this before. I am a firsthand witness. My written testimony is evidence. I was also asked for it. Now go ahead and move the goalposts because I know that's what you always do.

You still believe that a claim is evidence for itself?

 

[ufology]

It's a claim.

Resume,

The claim is that I saw an alien craft. The evidence is the description of that event along with the illustrations. Here is the dictionary definition of evidence for you ... I hope it helps ( note the bolded parts ).

evidence​

ev·i·dence[évvid’ns] noun



1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

•　There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime​

•　The police have no evidence.

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry​

​

 

[Resume]

Resume,

The claim is that I saw an alien craft. The evidence is the description of that event along with the illustrations. Here is the dictionary definition of evidence for you ... I hope it helps.

evidence​

ev·i·dence​

[​

​

​

​

évvid’ns] noun​

1.​

​

​

​

​

sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
•　There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.​

2.​

​

​

​

​

proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
•　The police have no evidence.
3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry​

Your testimony is an anecdote as well as a claim; an anecdote is a weak form of evidence and not accepted as such without corroboration. You have none for your anecdote.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resume,

The claim is that I saw an alien craft.

Yes, do you have any evidence for your claim?

 

[Robrob]

The claim is that I saw an alien craft.

No, the claim was you saw a light in the night sky. Everything after that has been fantasy.

 

[ufology]

You still believe that a claim is evidence for itself?

The above is yet another misrepresentation implying that I believe(d) something I have never believed and do not believe now.

 

[ufology]

Your testimony is an anecdote as well as a claim; an anecdote is a weak form of evidence and not accepted as such without corroboration. You have none for your anecdote.

Resume,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

Now go ahead and ignore the above and move the goalposts to suit yourself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is yet another misrepresentation implying that I believe(d) something I have never believed and do not believe now.

The above has misrepresented himself by saying that his claim is evidence for itself.

 

[Drs_Res]

WOW, you are making this very difficult.

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.

Thanks for answering the FIRST question, but the second bit of red text:
Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
No, it's very relevant actually.

Now, what about the other questions that you did not answer:


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

QUESTION:
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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resume,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

Now go ahead and ignore the above and move the goalposts to suit yourself.

I suppose your lying by omission is just a habit that you can't break.

"...in a trial or official inquiry."

 

[R.A.F.]

Resume,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

Now go ahead and ignore the above and move the goalposts to suit yourself.

It is not "moving the goalposts" to point out the FACT that eyewitness "testimony" is simply not reliable.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

 

[Resume]

Resume,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

Now go ahead and ignore the above and move the goalposts to suit yourself.

We're not talking about evidence in jurisprudence here but evidence as it is expected in science. Different disciplines, different rigors. You understand the difference, correct?

 

[R.A.F.]

deleted repeat of last post.

 

[ufology]

WOW, you are making this very difficult.



Thanks for answering the FIRST question, but the second bit of red text:
Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
No, it's very relevant actually.

Now, what about the other questions that you did not answer:

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


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

QUESTION:
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.

Drs_Res.

Please answer why the exact size is so relevant? Whatever it was, had incredible acceleration, maneuverability and control. What are you hoping to acheive with this line of questioning?

As for a reflection of the object on the lake. We couldn't see the lake from inside, and in the morning when I went outside, I had my gaze fixed on the object, not the lake, so I don't know. Like I also said, the Google representation is also off and seems elevated. The lake wasn't as visible from my vantage point as the illustration shows.

Regarding the sky. There were no obvious clouds or wind. Visibility was very good.

 

[Resume]

Whatever it was, had incredible acceleration, maneuverability and control.

Evidence?