UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

John Albert ( and the rest of the critics ),

Your responses appear to be nothing but more unsubstatiated proclamations

No, you are incorrect. They are well reasoned arguments which you are incapable of addressing. That's why you continue to refuse to address them.

and predictable comebacks

You may wish to ask yourself why they are predictable. You won't, but you should.

that fail to address a single issue I had made on the topic.

No, they've addressed every issue you've created. That's why you refuse to address them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

No, you're thinking that claims are evidence of themselves. You are incorrect.

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.

No, there is no evidence to suggest that UFOs ( ufology firefly hoax ) are extraterrestrial. If you have such evidence, this is the thread in which to present it. So far, there has been none. Your mistake here is in assuming that claims are evidence for themselves.

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.

No, you are incorrect. For evidendce of extraterrestrial visitation, we are left with nothing. Your continued mistake is in thinking that claims are evidence for themselves.

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 J Randall Murphy firefly Hoax ) 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.

ftfy and yes, look at your own hoax.

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.

ftfy again. There is no evidence unless you have pseudoscientifically begun with your unfalsifiable conclusion that "Some UFOs are alien in origin".

Why don't you try using the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

That one is falsifiable. It just hasn't been.

 

[Resume]

Krikkiter,

Vacuous content removed.

 

[Krikkiter]

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.

Not sure if this has been posted before but I just couldn't resist...

"The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth? The answer is... no."

Leonard Nimoy. Courtesy of The Simpsons.

 

[Krikkiter]

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.

Your last paragraph is confusing to me. The majority of people posting here are self proclaimed skeptics. Why you'd think any of them would have UFO anecdotes to share I'm not sure.

But eye witness accounts unaccompanied by other evidence is just speculation isn't it? I mean, I could say that I saw a panther roaming around my back yard the other day but (considering where I live) why would I expect anyone to believe me if all I had as evidence was my story?

Also, regarding your second paragraph (I'm still trying to work out the multi-quote thing so apologies), surely you see the logical fallacy in the first sentence? "... level of technology demonstrated by alien craft ..." To speculate on alien technology surely you first have to provide evidence of alien life first? That's what my questions one and two were about.

Re: the second last paragraph, I love the idea that intelligent, extraterrestrial life with technology beyond our current understanding have the ability to travel the distances involved - I love science fiction. I read the whole Foundation series when I was in my late teens - but it's fiction. We can speculate and imagine all sorts of things but (and I guess this is the point I'm trying to make), without covering the basics first - like my questions one and two, all we have is our imagination.

 

[Archer17]

...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.

Hows that going, BTW?

Your [ufology's] last paragraph is confusing to me. The majority of people posting here are self proclaimed skeptics. Why you'd think any of them would have UFO anecdotes to share I'm not sure.

That last paragraph of his (which I quoted) should confuse you. ufology didn't come here to "network with skeptics in a positive manner," he came here making affirmations (see red bolding for his favorite) and waved around dictionaries in lieu of making a case. All you have to do is read the thread.
There hasn't, besides cursory mentions of things like the '52 DC "flap" and the Belgian triangle in which he ignored observational inconsistencies in the former and deficiencies in the radar "evidence" in both instances, been anything approaching an examination of "sightings and alleged videos" unless you want to count his evolving tale. As to why he wants to dwell on hoaxed videos instead of discussing events that he feels would lead credence to his belief-system is something only he knows. Truth be told there has actually been more interesting discussion about specific ufological cases since his sabbatical.

 

[ufology]

No it isn't.

Yes the null hypothesis is indeed intended to establish probabilities under relatively controlled conditions ... to quote on the priniciple of the null hypothesis ( how it works ) from the Wikipedia article:

"Principle

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."

Also note this: "Much of the terminology used in connection with null hypotheses derives from the immediate relation to statistical hypothesis testing ...".


So the above clearly illustrates the principle of the null hypothesis is probability based. In fact it was created by ststatistician Ronald Fisher in 1935. Now having explained this several times already I would have thought that you'd catch on. Apparently you needed another reminder.

On the issue of relatively controlled conditions, it is self-evident that the data set must corelate to the repitition of similar, if not identical experiments or data collected from identical repeated surveys. The example used in the Wikipedia article is the coin toss. Obviously you wouldn't use a different coin for each toss. The other examples are controlled medical testing and demographic type surveys. Obviously you wouldn't use a different medication on each patient or a different survey for each participant.

Now in consideration of the above ( the actual way the null hypothesis is supposed to be used ), there were a number of studies done based on statistical data that clearly showed that about 22% of reported UFOs are "genuine". In other words there isn't any known manmade or natural phenomena that could have reasonably explained them. So in effect, the null hypothesis has already been proven false. However the critics simply ignore that data and move the goalposts for the standards of evidence to something they know there is no supporting data for yet. Yawn ... same old same old.

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

More than you apparently.

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

Thanks ... ( I think ) ... at least when I come fishing here I know the sharks are ready to feed. Have you got anything else for me besides the same old arguments, like the latest on UFO hoaxes, contactees, faked credentials or other useful tidbits?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes the null hypothesis is indeed [...]

No. No, it's not. Your dishonest attempt to redefine the purpose of the null hypothesis is failing, 100%, just as badly as your dishonest attempts to redefine common terms like UFO and pseudoscience.

Thanks ... ( I think ) ... at least when I come fishing here I know the sharks are ready to feed. Have you got anything else for me besides the same old arguments, like the latest on UFO hoaxes, contactees, faked credentials or other useful tidbits?

You never were willing to discuss one of the UFO hoaxes most often mentioned in this thread, the J. Randall Murphy hoax. That's the one fabricated to be foisted off on gullible rubes visiting the USI pseudoscience web site and repeated so many times here as if it were true. Any thoughts on that hoax?

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes the null hypothesis is indeed intended to establish probabilities under relatively controlled conditions ... to quote on the priniciple of the null hypothesis ( how it works ) from the Wikipedia article:

...snip...


More than you apparently.

I know it can be used alongside a test of probability but that's not the nub of the null. One coin, one butterfly. You don't need a statistical significance of 95% for that, just one toss.

I don't just parrot what I read on Wiki, I actually know what the null hypothesis is and how it works. Despite your ability to copy and paste passages of Wikipedia, you still don't.

Thanks ... ( I think ) ... at least when I come fishing here I know the sharks are ready to feed.

I meant it in a nice way.

Have you got anything else for me besides the same old arguments, like the latest on UFO hoaxes, contactees, faked credentials or other useful tidbits?

Me? Nah, no UFOs in Brighton of late. I often see Chinese lanterns from my front windows though, being released down on the beach.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So would UFOlogy like to explain how the null hypothisis suddenly changes from "all UFOs are of mundane origin" from anything he cut and pasted?

We have no reason to believe they are not of mundane origin.
We have no evidence to suggest they are not of mundane origin.
The null hypothosis is that they are of mundane origin.

Ufology, did you ever go to school? Did they have a class on science? Did you not learn how to use the null when you were about eleven?

 

[JayUtah]

Acuity is part of perception...

Explicitly not. Acuity is opthalmology and optics. Perception is psychology.

...and although your point is well taken...

In what way have you taken my point well? You've side-stepped it and tried to marginalize it.

To point out that eyewitness testimony is governed by reasonably well understood principles of perception and recall is not at all to say that a witness must suffer from poor eyesight. You're nowhere near my point.

...none of it makes it "safe to say", that eyewitness testimony should not be given more credit than the skeptics and debunkers here do ( which is essentially no credit at all ).

Straw man. For decades the pseudoscience of ufology has insisted that eyewitness testimony must be taken at face value, and has lashed out at any attempt to suggest that the witness may be misinterpreting the observation. To explore a witness's interpretation is not to give "no credit" to the witness, but merely to put UFO eyewitness testimony on par with how eyewitness testimony is handled elsewhere. UFO fanatics want us to accept as gospel every word that comes out of a witness's mouth. To do less than that is not to give "no credit" to the witness; it is merely to avoid being as uncritically enthralled with it as UFO fans seem to be.

The study of perception arose precisely out of the need to determine why eyewitness testimony has proven so unreliable in other forms of investigation. We have discovered over the past 30 years or so that much of what we intuitively believed about human visual perception and memory is badly wrong. It has reshaped how we interview witnesses and how we incorporate eyewitness testimony into the overall picture of evidence.

And I can see why ufology would be so terrified of it. Lacking any assertive proof, it must rely entirely on indirection and elimination. For years the whole premise of ufology has been that sightings must be of something remarkable because no mundane cause can explain the great size, unusual shapes, fantastic speeds, and other feats of aerospace dexterity that appear in the reports. If we now come to understand just how far off those perceptions can legitimately have been, we realize that there is no urgent need to reach for remarkable, farfetched explanations.

Applying the principles of perception frees witnesses from stigma. It makes it possible for them to have perceived something remarkable, but without there needing to be a farfetched cause that they are compelled to defend, and without them being accused of mental illness or poor judgment. The only people who need to fear the science of visual perception are those whose interest is vested in keeping something unexplained.

 

[Resume]

Now in consideration of the above ( the actual way the null hypothesis is supposed to be used ), there were a number of studies done based on statistical data that clearly showed that about 22% of reported UFOs are "genuine". In other words there isn't any known manmade or natural phenomena that could have reasonably explained them. QUOTE]

No, in these words, they remain unidentified.

 

[GeeMack]

The only people who need to fear the science of visual perception are those whose interest is vested in keeping something unexplained.

... like maybe people who start alien believer clubs and web sites targeting the gullible and fantasy prone so they can make a few dollars selling UFO pseudoscience books, maybe, for example.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Now in consideration of the above ( the actual way the null hypothesis is supposed to be used ), there were a number of studies done based on statistical data that clearly showed that about 22% of reported UFOs are "genuine". In other words there isn't any known manmade or natural phenomena that could have reasonably explained them.

No, in these words, they remain unidentified.

I don't think you are properly appreciating the beauty of redefining UFO from unknowns to OMG Aliens!

 

[wollery]

A few webpages on the null hypothesis. I suggest you read and digest.

http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=192

http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

http://www.engageinresearch.ac.uk/section_1/hypotheses.shtml

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Null%20Hypothesis

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Null-Hypothesis-Definition.htm

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes the null hypothesis is indeed intended to establish probabilities under relatively controlled conditions ... to quote on the priniciple of the null hypothesis ( how it works ) from the Wikipedia article:

"Principle

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."

Good, then you admit that the status quo is that "All UFOs are of mundane origin" since none have ever been shown to be non-mundane.

Also note this: "Much of the terminology used in connection with null hypotheses derives from the immediate relation to statistical hypothesis testing ...".

It is your null hypothesis, after all. Here's the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified. Well done, ufology!

So the above clearly illustrates the principle of the null hypothesis is probability based. In fact it was created by ststatistician Ronald Fisher in 1935. Now having explained this several times already I would have thought that you'd catch on. Apparently you needed another reminder.

You need another reminder of what the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis is? Ok:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Thanks to J Randall Murphy for his null hypothesis which has never been falsified.

On the issue of relatively controlled conditions, it is self-evident that the data set must corelate to the repitition of similar, if not identical experiments or data collected from identical repeated surveys. The example used in the Wikipedia article is the coin toss. Obviously you wouldn't use a different coin for each toss. The other examples are controlled medical testing and demographic type surveys. Obviously you wouldn't use a different medication on each patient or a different survey for each participant.

Why would you not use a different coin for every toss? In all the uncontrolled world of coin tossing, we've never seen one turn into a butterfly. Therefore the null hypothesis is:

"No flipped coins turn into butterflies"​

and it has never been falsified. Do you see why that null hypothesis is the default position for normal, sane people to assume? Now you give me an example of a null hypothesis from everyday life so that we may see that you understand it more than just copy/pasting.

Now in consideration of the above ( the actual way the null hypothesis is supposed to be used ), there were a number of studies done based on statistical data that clearly showed that about 22% of reported UFOs are "genuine". In other words there isn't any known manmade or natural phenomena that could have reasonably explained them. So in effect, the null hypothesis has already been proven false. However the critics simply ignore that data and move the goalposts for the standards of evidence to something they know there is no supporting data for yet. Yawn ... same old same old.

Have you thought of a null hypothesis from everyday life yet? If not, is it because you still have no comprehension of what one is?

More than you apparently.

Well, no. You are still confused about your own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it hasn't been falsified. Are you able to comprehend it yet when I simple it down for you like that?

Thanks ... ( I think ) ... at least when I come fishing here I know the sharks are ready to feed. Have you got anything else for me besides the same old arguments, like the latest on UFO hoaxes, contactees, faked credentials or other useful tidbits?

Do you yet have any evidence that would falsify your J Randall Murphy null hypothesis?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No. No, it's not. Your dishonest attempt to redefine the purpose of the null hypothesis is failing, 100%, just as badly as your dishonest attempts to redefine common terms like UFO and pseudoscience.

Reminds me of Rramjet's attempts to redefine the Sagan quote. Possible "sock"

 

[Krikkiter]

Hows that going, BTW?



That last paragraph of his (which I quoted) should confuse you. ufology didn't come here to "network with skeptics in a positive manner," he came here making affirmations (see red bolding for his favorite) and waved around dictionaries in lieu of making a case. All you have to do is read the thread.
There hasn't, besides cursory mentions of things like the '52 DC "flap" and the Belgian triangle in which he ignored observational inconsistencies in the former and deficiencies in the radar "evidence" in both instances, been anything approaching an examination of "sightings and alleged videos" unless you want to count his evolving tale. As to why he wants to dwell on hoaxed videos instead of discussing events that he feels would lead credence to his belief-system is something only he knows. Truth be told there has actually been more interesting discussion about specific ufological cases since his sabbatical.

I've read most of the thread and I sympathise with Ufology - not that he should consider my sympathy (or anyone else's ) to be something positive.

What really baffles me about the whole thing is the fact that he can say, with a straight face (presumably), that UFO's are evidence of the existence and earthly visitation of extraterrestrial intelligent life. I asked him for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and he basically responded by saying that (paraphrased):

1. When it comes to UFO stuff, the term evidence has a different meaning than what is usually accepted as standard so we need to just bear with him on it (I see two logical fallacies here but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong).

2. Anecdotes regarding Unidentified Flying Objects are the best evidence we have of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

I really wish he could see the fallacy in his point two.

 

[23_Tauri]

Reminds me of Rramjet's attempts to redefine the Sagan quote. Possible "sock"

Nah. I think the consensus of opinion here is that ufolo isn't Rramjet (Dirk Biddle). After all, they were having a conversation together on the other forum which I can't remember of the name of now because I am somewhat distracted.

Unless you were suggesting a null hypothesis from everyday life involving a sock? Something about how things disappear in the sock drawer?

 

[RoboTimbo]

2. Anecdotes regarding Unidentified Flying Objects are the best evidence we have of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

I really wish he could see the fallacy in his point two.

I'll just add to this one point although I agree with the entire post.

Because folo's opinion that anecdotes are the best relative evidence that we have for UFOs (as alien spaceships), he then believes that anecdotes are the best absolute evidence available, period. That's why he thinks eyewitness testimony is infallible and irrefutable. That's why he makes such obvious blunders as mistaking visual acuity for perception.

I'm still working out why he is so petulant about taking ownership of his own null hypothesis.