UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Pixel42,

Your proclamation that I don't understand the null hypothesis is not backed by any reasoning with respect to the statements I've made. I understand it very well and if anything, it is the skeptics here who have made the ill conceived choice to apply it to ufology.

Your proclamation that you understand a null hypothesis is not supported by the evidence of your posts.

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability. UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

And the above illustrates perfectly that you have no comprehension of the purpose of a null hypothesis. There is no conclusion that UFOs are mundane in origin, unlike your conclusion that some of them are non-mundane. You give me an example of a null hypothesis from everyday life to show that you understand it. Until you can do that, you continue to prove that you have no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis. The other thing they don't do is establish fixed standards of evidence, constantly moving the goalposts to suit their bias.

You don't understand the concept of the words status quo either. The status quo is that no UFOs have ever been shown to be alien in origin. Your misunderstanding of the purpose of a null hypothesis is probably the reason that you have this irrational bias towards an unfalsifiable pseudoscientific null hypothesis of "Some UFOs are alien in origin".

In the end, the only purpose of the null hypothesis as applied to ufology by the critics here has been to cloud the issue and steer the discussion.

Yes, we know you have no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is. You don't need to rub it in.

 

[Krikkiter]

Hi all. I've read a lot of this thread and I have a few questions for Ufology:

1. What evidence is there of the existence of extraterrestrial life?

2. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

3. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life that is capable of sending piloted (or non piloted) craft to our planet?

References would be appreciated.

That is all.

 

[John Albert]

Your proclamation that I don't understand the null hypothesis is not backed by any reasoning with respect to the statements I've made. I understand it very well and if anything, it is the skeptics here who have made the ill conceived choice to apply it to ufology.

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability. UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis. The other thing they don't do is establish fixed standards of evidence, constantly moving the goalposts to suit their bias.

In the end, the only purpose of the null hypothesis as applied to ufology by the critics here has been to cloud the issue and steer the discussion.

This statement proves you don't understand the concept or purpose of a null hypothesis.

I don't think you lack the capacity to understand it. I think you have chosen not to understand it, or you pretend not to understand it.

I suspect you're avoiding that acknowledgement because you deeply want to believe that UFOs are alien in nature, and understanding the null hypothesis would force you to admit you have no logical basis to insist that UFOs are anything other than misidentified mundane phenomena.

 

[ufology]

This statement proves you don't understand the concept or purpose of a null hypothesis.

I don't think you lack the capacity to understand it. I think you have chosen not to understand it, or you pretend not to understand it.

I suspect you're avoiding that acknowledgement because you deeply want to believe that UFOs are alien in nature, and understanding the null hypothesis would force you to admit you have no logical basis to insist that UFOs are anything other than misidentified mundane phenomena.

John Albert ( and the rest of the critics ),

Your responses appear to be nothing but more unsubstatiated proclamations and predictable comebacks that fail to address a single issue I had made on the topic.

 

[GeeMack]

Your proclamation that I don't understand the null hypothesis is not backed by any reasoning with respect to the statements I've made. I understand it very well and if anything, it is the skeptics here who have made the ill conceived choice to apply it to ufology.

You do not understand it very well as is unequivocally evidenced by your completely incorrect explanation of it below...

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability. UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis. The other thing they don't do is establish fixed standards of evidence, constantly moving the goalposts to suit their bias.

In the end, the only purpose of the null hypothesis as applied to ufology by the critics here has been to cloud the issue and steer the discussion.

The purpose of applying the null hypothesis to your claim that some UFOs are alien craft is to make it as easy as possible for you to demonstrate the truth of your claim. It is a tool to assist you in supporting your claim. To willfully ignore that, to intentionally misunderstand, or dishonestly pretend to misunderstand the null hypothesis only shows that your claim is untenable. You can't support it and you know you can't.

 

[GeeMack]

Hi all. I've read a lot of this thread and I have a few questions for Ufology:

1. What evidence is there of the existence of extraterrestrial life?

2. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

3. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life that is capable of sending piloted (or non piloted) craft to our planet?

References would be appreciated.

That is all.

Oh man, like, you had to be there, man. He was partying all night listening to some Zeppelin, can't remember which album but you know it was Led Zeppelin so who cares, right? So he and his girlfriend saw this thing like a firefly mating dance outside the window but that woulda been boring, so he changed the story again and again until it got really exciting to tell. Aliens, you know. Then the Internet came along and it opened up the perfect opportunity to write the story and get some rubes to believe it and have his very own actual UFO hoax. And if you weren't there, like how it's a religious experience to see aliens, you wouldn't understand.

Other than that, pretty much not a darn thing.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This statement proves you don't understand the concept or purpose of a null hypothesis.

I don't think you lack the capacity to understand it. I think you have chosen not to understand it, or you pretend not to understand it.

I suspect you're avoiding that acknowledgement because you deeply want to believe that UFOs are alien in nature, and understanding the null hypothesis would force you to admit you have no logical basis to insist that UFOs are anything other than misidentified mundane phenomena.

This is a bloke who offers up sober accounts of disappearing cars and talking rabbits. Not surprisingly rational discussion has proven to be a farce.

 

[ufology]

Hi all. I've read a lot of this thread and I have a few questions for Ufology:

1. What evidence is there of the existence of extraterrestrial life?

2. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

3. What evidence is there of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life that is capable of sending piloted (or non piloted) craft to our planet?

References would be appreciated.

That is all.

Krikkiter,

Thank you for your questions. For those who only accept verifiable physical scientific proof as evidence, there is no evidence. However the definition of evidence includes observation, which therefore includes eyewitness accounts.

So if we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs ( alien craft ) are extraterrestrial, but still nothing direct. In other words, I know of no UFO witnesses who claim to have observed a UFO coming into the Earth/Moon system. But such observation is possible and it has been rumored to have been accomplished by space monitoring stations at Space Command. But rumors are not evidence.

Consequently, for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, we are left only with eyewitness accounts that suggest that what was seen was something that no Earthly technology was capable of manufacturing at the time, and therefore was probably manufactured by extraterrestrials.

Given the lack of verifiable scientific evidence that proves alien visitation has happened, it is natural for many people to be highly skeptical. It is also reasonable for people who have never seen a UFO ( alien craft ) to simply reserve judgement pending convincing evidence or an experience of their own. Certainly there is also a lot of misinformation and hoaxes on the Internet.

Until we acquire some hard evidence, the best evidence for you to personally seek out is to start asking people if they have ever seen a UFO and listen to their accounts with an open but skeptical mind. If you do this enough times, you will come to realize that the UFO mystery is not as cut and dried as the critics on this forum would lead you to believe.

 

[AdMan]

So if we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs ( alien craft ) are extraterrestrial...

Starting your post in this way makes no sense. You are starting with the conclusion that UFOs are alien craft, and then trying to prove they are of alien origin? So your null hypothesis is that they are alien?

Sorry, but this is incredibly stupid. UFOs are mundane until proven otherwise.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Fireflies and Ufology's imagination are two things that "that no Earthly technology was capable of manufacturing at the time" and are a much better explanation of what went on.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability.

Nonsense. A null hypothesis can be used wherever phenomena are being studied and hypotheses are being formed and tested.

UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions.

Neither do volcanoes, storms, stars, neutrinos, or a host of other things. And yet, we can study them, use an appropriate null hypothesis, and try to falsify it.

The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects

No this is wrong. We don't *conclude* UFOs are mundane, we *assume* they are until sufficient evidence is given to *conclude* otherwise, which is completely in line with the purpose of the null hypothesis. Again, you display your (deliberate?) ignorance of the concept and its application. At least with respect to your own pet bull being gored.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

Thank you for your questions. For those who only accept verifiable physical scientific proof as evidence, there is no evidence. However the definition of evidence includes observation, which therefore includes eyewitness accounts.

So if we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs ( alien craft ) are extraterrestrial, but still nothing direct. In other words, I know of no UFO witnesses who claim to have observed a UFO coming into the Earth/Moon system. But such observation is possible and it has been rumored to have been accomplished by space monitoring stations at Space Command. But rumors are not evidence.

Consequently, for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, we are left only with eyewitness accounts that suggest that what was seen was something that no Earthly technology was capable of manufacturing at the time, and therefore was probably manufactured by extraterrestrials.

Given the lack of verifiable scientific evidence that proves alien visitation has happened, it is natural for many people to be highly skeptical. It is also reasonable for people who have never seen a UFO ( alien craft ) to simply reserve judgement pending convincing evidence or an experience of their own. Certainly there is also a lot of misinformation and hoaxes on the Internet.

Until we acquire some hard evidence, the best evidence for you to personally seek out is to start asking people if they have ever seen a UFO and listen to their accounts with an open but skeptical mind. If you do this enough times, you will come to realize that the UFO mystery is not as cut and dried as the critics on this forum would lead you to believe.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't mean to be difficult but you seem to have skipped questions one and two and jumped right to the last one.

It seems to me that it is vitally important that you answer the first two before getting to the last one.

I mean, I guess I at least expected you to answer the first one by saying something like well, there are x amount of stars and planets in the universe so statistically speaking there must be extraterrestrial life out there somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem with that (at least for the sake of this discussion).

The problem I see is that it would be equally speculative to say that there may be other life in the universe but that it hasn't evolved past a fairly basic level and isn't what we'd call "intelligent." And you have to admit, that would be as speculative as saying there is other intelligent life in the universe.

After that you still have to speculate about how an intelligent life form has worked out how to travel vast distances in a craft.

Do you see what I'm saying? It seems like speculation piled on top of speculation and that just doesn't seem right to me.

To me, the logic sequence is that set of questions in that order.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Given the lack of verifiable scientific evidence that proves alien visitation has happened, it is natural for many people to be highly skeptical.

It's not just natural, it's the only correct way to approach it.

Always remember that the easiest person to fool is yourself. That is why it is so important to be skeptical of those things for which there is no good evidence. Otherwise the wish that something should be true colors our judgment and the next thing you know it *is* true, evidence be damned.

 

[John Albert]

So if we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs ( alien craft ) are extraterrestrial, but still nothing direct. In other words, I know of no UFO witnesses who claim to have observed a UFO coming into the Earth/Moon system. But such observation is possible and it has been rumored to have been accomplished by space monitoring stations at Space Command. But rumors are not evidence.

So if I accept cat turds as equal in value to gold, I make a fortune every day when I clean out the litter box ( bank vault ). In other words, I know of no merchants who will accept cat crap as payment for goods or services, but such trade is possible and it has been rumored that some currency exchanges might honor cat ****-US dollar conversions. But, as you say, rumors are not evidence.

Consequently, for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, we are left only with eyewitness accounts that suggest that what was seen was something that no Earthly technology... <blah blah blah>

You are left with nothing substantial or verifiable. In other words, you are left with nothing.


I notice you're still sticking to that "UFO ( alien craft )" buffoonery. I suppose you've branched out into redefining the rules of grammar now, as well as terminology?

Until we acquire some hard evidence.

It's been 60+ years at least, since this UFO thing started. Even longer than that, if you count the "foo fighter" legends of WWII. Yet not a shred of "hard evidence" has ever surfaced, so you keep on believing in fairy tales.

What do you expect an "open but skeptical mind" to make of that?

 

[Sideroxylon]

If I accept cat turds as equal in value to gold, I make a fortune every day when I clean out the litter box. In other words, I know of no merchants who will accept cat crap as payment for goods or services, but such trade is possible and it has been rumored that some currency exchanges might honor cat ****-US dollar conversions. But, as you say, rumors are not evidence.

Richard Hoagland, Alex Jones and David Icke seem to have no problem turning a profit from whiffy commodities market

 

[ufology]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't mean to be difficult but you seem to have skipped questions one and two and jumped right to the last one.

It seems to me that it is vitally important that you answer the first two before getting to the last one.

I mean, I guess I at least expected you to answer the first one by saying something like well, there are x amount of stars and planets in the universe so statistically speaking there must be extraterrestrial life out there somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem with that (at least for the sake of this discussion).

The problem I see is that it would be equally speculative to say that there may be other life in the universe but that it hasn't evolved past a fairly basic level and isn't what we'd call "intelligent." And you have to admit, that would be as speculative as saying there is other intelligent life in the universe.

After that you still have to speculate about how an intelligent life form has worked out how to travel vast distances in a craft.

Do you see what I'm saying? It seems like speculation piled on top of speculation and that just doesn't seem right to me.

To me, the logic sequence is that set of questions in that order.

Krikkiter,

I see what you are saying and I agree completely. I answered the way that I did because you asked for evidence. However speculation isn't evidence. The only evidence that the public has access to are eyewitness accounts.

Even if we reach the level of technology demonstrated by alien craft, there is no guarantee that it will help us locate where they are from. We simply don't know enough about them, and both sides of the debate tend to speculate according to their own biases.

Critics say the vast distances make interstellar travel next to impossible to traverse in a lifetime, therefore they presume no aliens have ever made it to Earth. Proponents say that the aliens have probably invented something analogous to warp travel and it's not a big problem for them. However both views assume a home base on another planet. For all we know, their home planet doesn't even exist anymore and they are nomadic with really long lifespans, and travel in huge multi-generation craft at only a fraction of light speed. No exotic engineering would be required, just the ability to build really big ships and some method of energy generation not much that further ahead than ours, fusion perhaps.

Lastly, you may not have noticed, but I didn't sign up with this forum to prove UFOs ( alien craft exist ), only to try to network with skeptics in some positive manner regarding sightings and alleged videos. So if you have any info you would like to share on hoaxes, please let me know via a private email. Genuine and constructive skeptical input is very much appreciated.

 

[23_Tauri]

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability.

No it isn't.

UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis.

You haven't learnt anything about the null hypothesis, have you?

Nice to see back by the way. I was getting bored.

 

[wollery]

Pixel42,

Your proclamation that I don't understand the null hypothesis is not backed by any reasoning with respect to the statements I've made. I understand it very well and if anything, it is the skeptics here who have made the ill conceived choice to apply it to ufology.

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability. UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis. The other thing they don't do is establish fixed standards of evidence, constantly moving the goalposts to suit their bias.

In the end, the only purpose of the null hypothesis as applied to ufology by the critics here has been to cloud the issue and steer the discussion.

Pure semantics.

Let's ignore the phrase "null hypothesis", and concentrate simply on what you have said and the various ways that it can be stated.

Throughout this discussion you have maintained as fact that "some UFOs are non-mundane in origin".

But that can be restated as; "not all UFOs are mundane in origin", and from here we can see that this is just the same as saying "the statement that; "all UFOs are mundane in origin" is false".

However, you've also stated very clearly that your position that "some UFOs are non-mundane in origin" has not been proved.

But this is exactly the same as saying that "the statement "all UFOs are mundane in origin" hasn't been proved to be false". Or "the statement "all UFOs are mundane in origin" hasn't been disproved".

They are simply equivalent statements, which makes all of your protestations about the use of the null hypothesis moot.

So in summary, you yourself have stated that you have not disproved that "all UFOs are mundane in origin", you just used a different form of words to do it, and all the semantic arguments about the validity of the use of the null hypothesis won't change that fact.

 

[23_Tauri]

Consequently, for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, we are left only with eyewitness accounts that suggest that what was seen was something that no Earthly technology was capable of manufacturing at the time, and therefore was probably manufactured by extraterrestrials.

Probably?

Until we acquire some hard evidence, the best evidence for you to personally seek out is to start asking people if they have ever seen a UFO and listen to their accounts with an open but skeptical mind. If you do this enough times, you will come to realize that the UFO mystery is not as cut and dried as the critics on this forum would lead you to believe.

IMO, this is akin to going down the pub late in the evening after the village fly-fishing competition and asking the gathered masses the size of their prize-winning fishes.

 

[23_Tauri]

Even if we reach the level of technology demonstrated by alien craft, there is no guarantee that it will help us locate where they are from.

What the.....?!

We've never discovered an alien craft so how on Earth can you talk about their "level of technology"?

We simply don't know enough about them,

Too right, we've never even found one.

and both sides of the debate tend to speculate according to their own biases.

No speculation on the skeptic side, just the request that UFOlogists submit evidence to falsify the null.