• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Puddleduck
Thanks for the clarification on the Iranian aircraft and the deficiences in the IIAF maintenance program. Sorry, I missed your post before today, I was too busy making lame jokes...

I would've appreciated more discussion about the Tehran incident, however our main proponent of the alien hypothesis for this seems to have left the room.

There's not much evidence for UFOs on this thread of late, is there? Could that possibly be because there's not much evidence out there for UFOs being anything other than mundane? :)
 
GeeMack said:
You forgot bird watchers, millions of them always watching the sky. When they go to the grocery store, they look up. When they take the garbage cans out to the street, they look up. They drive hundreds of miles from home for the exclusive purpose of looking up. They skip meals and turn down invitations and spend lots of money on books, binoculars, gas, and motel rooms just so they can do more looking up. They take cameras with them, good cameras, really good cameras. Sometimes they go alone, but often they gather in vary large groups in order to verify what each other is seeing while they're looking up.
Click to expand...

Remarkably precise description of the last 37 years of my life...
 
23_Tauri said:
Hi Puddleduck
Thanks for the clarification on the Iranian aircraft and the deficiences in the IIAF maintenance program. Sorry, I missed your post before today, I was too busy making lame jokes...

I would've appreciated more discussion about the Tehran incident, however our main proponent of the alien hypothesis for this seems to have left the room.

There's not much evidence for UFOs on this thread of late, is there? Could that possibly be because there's not much evidence out there for UFOs being anything other than mundane? :)
Click to expand...

Well with cameras being so common these days there's not much excuse for failing to have photographic evidence, and by and large pictures just make it more likely the mundane explanation will be discovered. And of course photos limit some of the flights of fancy witnesses layer onto their 'sightings'.
 
What are the mundane explanations to these cases in this video:
http://vimeo.com/19717064

The cases are:
#10: Nuremberg, 1561
#9: Skylab III
#8: Yukon 'mothership'
#7: Malstrom AFB
#6: Shag Harbour
#5: Kelly Johnson
#4: McMinnville/Trent Photo
#3: Rendlesham Forest
#2: Iran, 1976
#1: RB-47

Actually: I only want to know your explanations (mundane) to 9 and 8. Let´s say that they are not aliens/alien craft, but what is your explanation if you are sure, that there must be a mundane explanation? What´s the scientific or sceptical point of view to those cases. How would you explain them to a person who is almost becoming a ufo nut and you can still prevent it by having a good explanation. Would you even try?
 
tomi71 said:
What are the mundane explanations to these cases in this video:
http://vimeo.com/19717064

The cases are:
#10: Nuremberg, 1561
#9: Skylab III
#8: Yukon 'mothership'
#7: Malstrom AFB
#6: Shag Harbour
#5: Kelly Johnson
#4: McMinnville/Trent Photo
#3: Rendlesham Forest
#2: Iran, 1976
#1: RB-47

Actually: I only want to know your explanations (mundane) to 9 and 8. Let´s say that they are not aliens/alien craft, but what is your explanation if you are sure, that there must be a mundane explanation? What´s the scientific or sceptical point of view to those cases. How would you explain them to a person who is almost becoming a ufo nut and you can still prevent it by having a good explanation. Would you even try?
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for you to understand? The scientific or skeptical point of view is the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
Do you have information from any of those cases that would falsify the null hypothesis? It isn't up to the scientific or skeptical community to positively identify the mundane explanation in every case. If you are positing that there is something non-mundane going on, then you have the burden of proof to show that.

Since nobody here is making claims about those cases, what is there to discuss?
 
Yes I have. The phenomena itself challenges the mundane explanation, since it behaves in a non mundane way. Is this the best you got? I wonder how you can be so sure that these phenomenons are mundane. Maybe your explanation makes you happy but it certainly isn´t trying to find any answers even though you seem to argue, that you have the answers.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand? The scientific or skeptical point of view is the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
Do you have information from any of those cases that would falsify the null hypothesis? It isn't up to the scientific or skeptical community to positively identify the mundane explanation in every case. If you are positing that there is something non-mundane going on, then you have the burden of proof to show that.

Since nobody here is making claims about those cases, what is there to discuss?
Click to expand...

tomi71 said:
Yes I have. The phenomena itself challenges the mundane explanation, since it behaves in a non mundane way. Is this the best you got? I wonder how you can be so sure that these phenomenons are mundane. Maybe your explanation makes you happy but it certainly isn´t trying to find any answers even though you seem to argue, that you have the answers.
Click to expand...


Oh great. We get to start over and explain the null hypothesis... from scratch... as if it was never explained at all. Well, who wants to go first?... John?... RoboTimbo?... Stray Cat?... anyone?
 
What is mundane after all if it´s unknown. How can something not discovered be labeled as mundane. Mundane means that it is something normal, proven, discovered, in common knowledge. These cases obviously are not. It´s as simple as that.
 
tomi71 said:
What is mundane after all if it´s unknown. How can something not discovered be labeled as mundane. Mundane means that it is something normal, proven, discovered, in common knowledge. These cases obviously are not. It´s as simple as that.
Click to expand...

What was the null hypothesis thingamajig that folks were talkin about earlier?
 
tomi71 said:
Yes I have. The phenomena itself challenges the mundane explanation, since it behaves in a non mundane way. Is this the best you got? I wonder how you can be so sure that these phenomenons are mundane. Maybe your explanation makes you happy but it certainly isn´t trying to find any answers even though you seem to argue, that you have the answers.
Click to expand...

If you're claiming that any of these is non-mundane, you'll need to provide evidence that would falsify the null hypothesis.

Attempting to switch the burden of proof isn't falsifying the null hypothesis. Maybe I should have you give me an example of a null hypothesis from everyday life so that everyone here can see that you understand it. ufology (the poster) would always refuse to give an example and he never did learn. Let's see if you can do any better.
 
tomi71 said:
Mundane means that it is something normal, proven, discovered, in common knowledge. These cases obviously are not.
Click to expand...
Numerous UFO cases were considered by some to be "obviously not mundane" right up until the mundane explanation was discovered. Many such cases have been discussed on this thread.

If you don't have enough information to determine what the explanation is then you don't know whether that explanation is mundane or not. You're certainly not justified in assuming it isn't mundane.
 
tomi71 said:
What is mundane after all if it´s unknown. How can something not discovered be labeled as mundane. Mundane means that it is something normal, proven, discovered, in common knowledge. These cases obviously are not. It´s as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Its a logical concept, its not the solution, its the starting position
1. if you start expecting everything to be mundane, then its easy to see the things that don't fit that description which can then be further investigated
2. if you start expecting everything to be alien, then you must investigate everything to see whats mundane before you can ignore it
the first approach is the logical approach, the second approach is exhaustive, you'd be so busy trying to remove the mundane (because no UFO reports have so far proven to be non mundane) that you'd miss the aliens
;)
 
Last edited:
tomi71 said:
What is mundane after all if it´s unknown. How can something not discovered be labeled as mundane. Mundane means that it is something normal, proven, discovered, in common knowledge. These cases obviously are not. It´s as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that for every 'unknown' UFO, when new information has come to light, has been found to be mundane. :rolleyes:

I don't know what my friend had for breakfast this morning. To me, his choice of early morning comestibles is completely unknown. However, later on today I am going round to his house to watch a DVD, at which point I can ask him what he had for breakfast. I expect a fairly mundane answer.*

*not that my friend is boring, but toast and marmalade, or - possibly it being the weekend - croissants, isn't in the Vulcan Polmeek Soup category.
 
Just asking your opinion. What´s the explanation to these cases? Let´s keep it simple folks. Either you have an explanation or you don´t. Nothing more nothing less. Actually it seems that you are not even trying. That´s very undestandable since these cases are nothing like mundane even though your null hypothesis is that they are. You are guessing only and hypothesis is only a hypothesis. It´s not a fact, it´a a hypothesis (like a theory).
 
One reason we have the null hypothesis:

homeopath - "Okay so you showed those 39,641 studies were poor but what about this one. It's real proof."

psychic - "Okay so you showed those 39,641 psychics were fake but what about this one. It's real proof."

crop circle fan - "Okay so you showed those 39,641 circles were fake but what about this one. It's real proof."

cf: Unsinkable rubber ducks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom