UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician and some statistical studies have been done based on official USAF sighting reports. Perhaps you would like to comment on how those studies relate to the statistical application of the null hypothesis? The studies were carried out by the Battelle Memorial Institute. I look forward to your commentary.

Perhaps you could comment upon what that mahoosive pile of straw has got to do with your incapacity in the face of the null hypothesis "all UFOs are of mundane origin" and your inability to provide any evidence to falsify it.

You purport to come here looking for science useful to the study of ufology. Here it is, in case you missed it earlier:

The J Randall Murphy null hypothesis: All UFOs are of mundane origin.

 

[GeeMack]

I've asked for some skeptical input on recent UFO sightings, science and other things related to ufology reserch and evidence.

And you continue to ignore the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax. Imagine that.

 

[Archer17]

I decided to take a crack at De_Bunk's questions myself.

Tell me why not a single alien UFO has been seen directly above someones head..?

Right off the bat I have a nit with the phrasing of this question. Can't assign something an alien designation if the object is unidentified. This non sequitur is ufology's, no need to make it yours as well. As to why a "UFO" has never been seen directly above someone's head I'm not aware that this has never happened. The reasons it probably isn't a common aspect of UFO sightings include: not many people spend much time looking straight up without a reason to do so. Then there's the fact that if an object was tracked long enough where one would see it directly overhead the odds would lessen that the 'object' would remain unidentified to the observer.

Why is/are every UFO picture/vid taken from afar..?

The inability to properly identify an object increases with distance. It's quite possible the "UFO" you see "from afar" wouldn't be unidentified if it was closer to you. Then there's this: if a "flying saucer" suddenly appeared right in front of me I'd probably run like hell! With photoshop and other programs all photographic "evidence" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I give you that relatively recent Jerusalem video hoax as 'Exhibit A' in that regard.

In the entire history of mankind...there has been no definitive proof...

Exactly. That's why those that try to replace the 'U' are asked to provide irrefutable evidence. Many ufologists try to make skeptics and/or debunkers the foils here but it's not our fault they can't deliver the goods.

In this day and age of digital cameras..Cellphone cameras..etc...Yet still nothing...

Well, there's something, but nothing that removes that 'U.' That's not to say I totally disagree with your gist, we should see more photos/videos if there was something universally unidentified. On that note I can think of 2 examples of where there has been a curious lack of pics/videos - the initial Phoenix "UFO" (not the flares that were seen later and generated mucho footage) and the O'Hare "UFO." Could it be that the folks that saw the objects in question and knew what it was didn't see the need to report or photograph an IFO? Then there's the so-called Stephenville sightings that got a lot of press a while back. We got some pics and videos but they sucked... no Deneb IV license plates seen AFAIK.

Why would an alien race, that is that advanced..and travelled trillions of miles, even need to take a human from this planet?..

I bring this up all the time in real debates. It infers a technological inferiority vis-à-vis us Earthers, doesn't it? The real question is why there hasn't been any credible independent corroboration including videos involving the so-called repeat-abductees.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician and some statistical studies have been done based on official USAF sighting reports. Perhaps you would like to comment on how those studies relate to the statistical application of the null hypothesis? The studies were carried out by the Battelle Memorial Institute. I look forward to your commentary.

And we all look forwards to you supplying actual evidence. Looking forwards is fun right?

Oh look. The null hypothesis remains that all UFOs are of mundane evidence. Who woulda thought.

 

[John Albert]

Actually it is you and the others who are off topic. The thread title is "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" and I've been asking for skeptical commentary on the latest research and evidence.

The latest research reveals the same thing it has been revealing for the last 60+ years: there's no evidence.

In other news, tonight's weather forecast: dark.

This is the skeptic's home turf so it's up to them to get out there and dig it up. But instead, you pretend to be doing something useful by lying in wait for anyone who might be interested in UFOs and then engaging in ufology bashing. Get out there and find something useful please. Surely you can find something to post? Or is picking on people the best you can do?

Do you not have any recent research or evidence to present a skeptical point of view on? Get out there and find something useful instead of blaming me for your lack of initiative.

How do you figure it's up to the skeptics to do your work for you?

You're the UFOlogist, why don't you "get out there" and do some UFOlogy?

Or are you just a big phony who sits on his ass and pretends to expertise while expecting others to do all the legwork?

This arrogant attitude of yours is really tiresome.

What has UFOlogy (the pseudoscience, not the poster) done for humanity in the last 60 years?

It hasn't done jack ****, and right there you have at least one reason why. It's "practiced" by pseudoscientists who pretend to knowledge without really investigating or testing anything in any meaningful way.

I didn't come here to engage in challenges to my beliefs.

Then please explain why you started a thread wherein you proposed to teach us all about critical thinking and why, in your opinion, we had been doing it all wrong. If that's not a challenge, then what is it?

In that case, you were the one issuing the challenge to all of us as a group. It pretty much set the tone for all your interactions with the members here.

I came here hoping to network with skeptics who have information on the latest sightings, hoaxes or science that people interested in ufology would find useful from a skeptical and/or critically minded point of view.

...but only if that "critically-minded point of view" avoids criticizing your own beliefs, and instead accepting them unquestioningly at face value. Once you found yourself on the business end of critical scrutiny, you became stubbornly argumentative. You began to assert your own personal authority, pretending to know more than everybody else, and to steer the conversation in whatever direction you wanted instead of participating in a respectful and equitable manner.

However by confronting me, mocking me, ridiculing me and offhandedly dismissing my beliefs instead of providing useful information, all you have done is eroded the credibility of yourself and the JREF.

"Me, me, me."

It's not all about you, Mr. J. Randall Murphy. It's not all about what you alone consider to be "useful information," either. This entire thread is full of useful information, you just seem to have a knack for ignoring it.

We didn't go to your website to criticize you. You came to this forum dedicated to science and critical thinking, BSing with the selfsame pretense of expertise that you've been trumpeting all over the Internet for the last few years. You purported to school us on a subject you know nothing about, ie. "critical thinking." You cited some broad, vague definition as the only acceptable one. Then you asserted, based on that definition, that we must change the practice of critical analysis to accept anecdotes (a.k.a. "stories" or "claims") as evidence for themselves.

Ever since that initial confrontation (which you started, not us), you've posited numerous logical errors, ignoring our corrections, and repeating the very same errors on page after page of discussion. You've accused us of improper language use, and dishonestly attempted to rewrite the definitions of common words to support your own arguments. You've blatantly ignored most questions and challenges that might expose errors in your own reasoning. You've pretended to knowledge that you do not have, and then vehemently argued against career experts in the related fields when they tried to correct your misrepresentations.

Now you're alleging a grand conspiracy on the part of the skeptics to unfairly malign you. The hypocrisy is obvious.

Your accusations against the JREF are especially hypocritical, considering how you actively misrepresent your own website ("Ufology Society International") as an authoritative research organization, when it's really just your own personal fanfiction site with your own fantastical stories and opinions, disguised to look like a research organization.

If you expect your treatment here to change, you're going to have to drop the arrogant facade and start being honest, with others and yourself. You're going to have to listen to people when they correct your errors. They're doing it for a reason: not to hurt you, but to help.

There's nothing wrong with entertaining an interest in UFOs. I think most of the people in this thread find them interesting, and the associated lore and pop culture interpretations to be fun and entertaining. The main difference is the willingness and discipline to discern reality from fantasy. Life doesn't become any less interesting when you learn to do that. In fact, I feel the life of the mind becomes a lot more gratifying when one is able to actually research and learn the finer details about a subject, instead of just skimming for facts that support one's own pet beliefs.

 

[ufology]

This is the skeptic's thread. Therefore it's the skeptics who are supposed to be providing the skeptical commentary on the research and evidence. So why doesn't anyone here go get some instead of ufology bashing?

 

[AdMan]

This is the skeptic's thread. Therefore it's the skeptics who are supposed to be providing the skeptical commentary on the research and evidence. So why doesn't anyone here go get some instead of ufology bashing?

In what way is this a "skeptic's thread"? Did you see who started it?

 

[John Albert]

Nobody here ever purported to seek out UFO stories to debunk. This thread was initiated by Rramjet as a challenge to the skeptics, with the purpose of proving UFOs were alien craft. He took that mantle upon himself, and he failed.

 

[ufology]

what research, what evidence
where ?


are you that conceited that you can't see that the only thing you have contributed to this thread is lies, deceit and dishonesty and have shown even the fence sitters the study of ufology is utter, utter garbage
are you currently writing posts here from a mental institution ?
just asking ?
you are clearly obsessed with something that has no substance

Ufology basher.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology basher.

 

[ufology]

In what way is this a "skeptic's thread"? Did you see who started it?

AdMan,

It's the Skeptic's thread because the whole website is about skeptical and critical thinking and this thread is about the research and evidence ... so how about digging up some useful skeptical information that would help people interested in ufology better appreciate your point of view? I could care less how it was started or what has gone before, it's time to do something more constructive.

 

[R.A.F.]

...it's the skeptics who are supposed to be providing the skeptical commentary on the research and evidence.

Wow...what an OBVIOUS attempt to shift the burden of proof....and just after you had been reminded about it...that could ONLY have been intentional...

Poor form....

We don't have to do a damn thing, except critique evidence YOU provide.


You're moving up in the world...you're almost up there with the intellectual cowards.

Congratulations.

 

[R.A.F.]

It's the Skeptic's thread because the whole website is about skeptical and critical thinking and this thread is about the research and evidence...

See...this is what happens when you let the crazies to run the asylum. He isn't held responsible for defending his ideas, so HE THINKS HE IS BEING SKEPTICAL.

 

[AdMan]

AdMan,

It's the Skeptic's thread because the whole website is about skeptical and critical thinking and this thread is about the research and evidence ... so how about digging up some useful skeptical information that would help people interested in ufology better appreciate your point of view? I could care less how it was started or what has gone before, it's time to do something more constructive.

This is silly. It's like someone starting a thread claiming there are fairies in his garden, and then expecting skeptics to "dig up some useful information" that would help people interested in fairies to understand the skeptical point of view.

 

[Marduk]

Ufology basher.

There's nothing to bash, you have produced no evidence
just lied repeatedly about your own anecdote, which you expect us to be as deluded about as you are
how is that supposed to be "research"

serious question
are you now or have you ever been psychologically evaluated and medicated ?

 

[JayUtah]

Here's the definition of acuity from Encarta:

The term is "visual acuity," which has a precise meaning in the relevant sciences. If you'd look up the right word, you'd get the right definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

You raised this point by trying to say that issues of "perception" were irrelevant since the witnesses had 20/20 vision. You referred to visual acuity; I merely put the proper technical term to it. Your subsequent tap dance around general dictionary words has absolutely nothing to do your your confusion among concepts and avenues of scientific inquiry.

Face it ... with zero acuity you'd have zero perception unless your brain was directly affected by some other stimulus.

Correct. That's why perception researchers start out by assuming the viewer has normal visual acuity for humans. If they don't, that's some other science. So when you say that perception is irrelevant because the viewers have normal human vision, you reveal your ignorance.

So when we invoke perception, we stipulate (as do you) that the witnesses probably had normal eyesight. That doesn't mean they had infallible perception.

It's not that I don't understand your point however...

Agreed; it's that your fleeing from my point. You're trying desperately not to have to deal with cognitive psychology because if you do, you can't assert that your witnesses must have seen something remarkable that can only be explained by the paranormal.

...just that it's not as separate as you are claiming it is unless you are dealing solely within the realm of a particular part of psychology...

I am. And visual acuity has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. That's exactly the problem. People are discussing a psychology argument and you're trying to interject an irrelevant opthalmology argument as a straw man. Please try to deal with the arguments that were presented, not the arguments you wish were presented.

...which in the context of this discussion is nothing more than cherry picking specialized information to counter a generalized point about the workings of our senses.

Visual acuity isn't a generalized point. In fact, it's much more precisely defined than cognitive perception. They are simply two separate things, and to rebut one is not to have addressed the other in the least.

Yes, far be it from the experts to bring up specialized information that affects your claims. Perception research is important enough for the NTSB to completely change how they train witness interviewers. It's important enough that any serious court case today involves expert witnesses to inform juries about the limits of testimony and memory. It is the science that governs the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. And you're willfully ignorant of it. That's part of what makes ufology a pseudoscience.

 

[Krikkiter]

... it's the skeptics who are supposed to be providing the skeptical commentary on the research and evidence.

Which is exactly what is happening. You might not like the results but you can't try and pretend that people aren't commenting on the research and evidence provided.

So why doesn't anyone here go get some instead of ufology bashing?

No-one's obliged to try and find evidence and research re: UFO anecdotes. In fact what usually happens at JREF is that someone with a positive claim (in this case UFO's) will post their hypothesis and people here will attempt to show the problems with it. You've provided one anecdote (as far as I'm aware) and it has been shown to lack substance as far as evidence goes.

I'm sure if you provide more anecdotes people will apply critical thinking to that as well.

The biggest problem you have, one that you're refusing to face up to, is that you're starting with a preconceived conclusion and working backwards from there: "All UFO's are alien spacecraft." You don't see a problem with that?

Remember my questions?

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?

I'll answer them for you:

1. There is currently no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

2. See 1.

3. See 1.

Despite the above you continue to insist that all UFO's are necessarily alien spacecraft.

Feel free to relate another anecdote regarding UFO's but don't be disappointed when, after analysis it turns out that the UFO was just that - an Unidentified Flying Object.

 

[ufology]

This is silly. It's like someone starting a thread claiming there are fairies in his garden, and then expecting skeptics to "dig up some useful information" that would help people interested in fairies to understand the skeptical point of view.

AdMan,

We are talking about UFOs, not fairies. There have been scientists and other professionals who have taken them very seriously. There is also no scientific reason that UFOs ( alien craft ) are not possible or even likely. The main point of contention is whether or not any of them have visited Earth.

So once again, the Internet is full of accounts and articles and science that all have a bearing on the subject matter. Can you please offer up something useful and positive to help those interested in ufology appreciate the skeptical/non-believer's point of view?

 

[TjW]

Oh. Okay. Probably the first thing you need to be aware of if you plan to do useful research is something called the null hypothesis.
This is the thing that one would assume if no evidence at all is presented. The goal is to present evidence that will falsify this null hypothesis, so it's key that you select one that can be falsified.
So, "Some UFO sightings are alien craft" is a bad null hypothesis, because in order to falsify it, one would have to show that no UFO sightings are alien craft. Since we don't have access to all the information for all UFO sightings, or, indeed, all UFO sightings, it's impractical to consider showing that none of these are alien craft.
"No UFO sightings are alien craft", on the other hand, is a good null hypothesis, because it only requires a single counterexample of an actual unambiguous alien craft to falsify it.

So, really, skeptics want to minimize the amount of work you need to do to perform useful research. We don't ask that you exhaustively evaluate every UFO sighting. We just ask that you present enough evidence to falsify that null hypothesis which is the easiest of the two to falsify.

Isn't that nice of skeptics?

 

[Krikkiter]

AdMan,

It's the Skeptic's thread because the whole website is about skeptical and critical thinking and this thread is about the research and evidence ... so how about digging up some useful skeptical information that would help people interested in ufology better appreciate your point of view? I could [not]care less how it was started or what has gone before, it's time to do something more constructive.

Just had to fix that for you.

I know I'm being picky but it's one of my pet grammatical irks.