UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sideroxylon]

And above we see the predicted response on how the null hypothesis, developed by a statistician, and used by establishing probabilities based on observation, as outlined in the Wikipedia article, is simply ignored and replaced by some watered down personal "high school" version in order to prop up an argument.

Could you demonstrate that your claim of this limitation of the null hypothesis is not simply an argument form authority built through cherry picking and distortion of the Wikipedia article? The most effective way to do this would be to explain what elements of the null hypothesis cause such a limitation to exist.

We also see continued avoidance of the fact that the word UFO is meant to convey different things in different contexts e.g. in UFO reports or in casual conversation or in an investigative capacity ( historical or otherwise ). Such avoidance ( intentional or otherwise ) only serves to cloud the issue. What are the skeptics really after here? Are we not supposed to be trying to clarify the issue instead?

Similarly, instead of resorting to dodgy appeals to authority with regards to your preferred definition, please present a case for the utility of your definition in the context of honest investigation of the phenomena.

Lastly, we've already established that no sufficient material evidence is readily available that would conclusively prove that UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited planet Earth. So what is the real argument? Is it that it's not reasonable to believe any of the the thousands of unexplained reports? Why is that? Is it just because skeptics like to call everyone else liars or hoaxers or incompetent?

Unexplained means just that. It does not mean insert favorite speculative idea as fact.

 

[23_Tauri]

GeeMack,

You speak of bias and then splash yours all over the place. First you incorrectly call ufology a pseudoscience when you have no rationale for doing so other than to slap some derogatory name on it.

Then you go on to misrepresent the usage and definition of the word UFO the same as you always do.

Wrong again, folg. UFO does not mean alien spaceships anywhere except in your deluded fantasy world. Your latest lame attempt at re-defining space aliens into existence falls flat on its face just like all your previous ones. I'll explain why. Yesterday, you wrote:

So here's yet another quote from USAF archives as to what the word "unidentified" in the context of official UFO investigations means:

"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."​

See that quote above from your sacred "USAF archives"? Show me where in that quote there appears the words alien space ship. I'll give you a hand...



They don't.



Nowhere.



Not there.

Notwithstanding the fact that this quote is from an archive, the shortcomings of which have been pointed out to you by other posters, what the quote says is:

"the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena".​

One would have to be totally deluded in order to conclude from the above that the author of those words was trying to say space aliens. "Cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena" does not exclude unknown objects or phenomena of Earthly origin, nor known objects or phenomena which one cannot correlate the particular witness report to, most probably due to lack of data. So it could be something mundane, which we know about, or even something that we don't yet know about, but still very much a product of this planet and all it's diverse wonders.

You still think that USAF archive snippet says "OMG aleeyns!"?

 

[Stray Cat]

Since the definition of null hypothesis and its working principle rely on statistical probability and observation ( Wikipedia ), then the null hypothesis above has already been falsified by USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14:

"In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion."

Despite this, the summary section of the Battelle Institute's final report declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."

And of course this "Special Report" was published by the rather credulous Ruppelt way back in 1951, when Ufology was still at elementary school.
Sadly Ufology has been kept back at this level all these decades, whilst the USAF has gone through high school and college learning from it's mistakes and has gone on to publish much more on it's detailed investigations into UFOs. Your dishonest cherry picking of the single piece of outdated and superseded research that kind of agrees with your blind belief (in statistical analysis if not in the actual conclusion that the people who did the research arrived at) is typical of your MO.

 

[Toke]

What is all this talk of statistics?
To me it looks just like an attempt to compress a pile of manure into gold nuggets.

If enough anecdotes equalled data, Elvis would be walking among us by now.

 

[Akhenaten]

Resume,

True. If we knew where these alien craft came from and had some cultural or diplomatic relationship with them, then they would only be alien in a sense similar to any other foreign national ( as in illegal alien ).

Which alien craft would these be, Mr Fology? The ones you're attempting to define into existence?

It's a marvel that when someone points out that you can't, in the same breath, describe something as both 'unidentified' and 'an alien craft', your reaction is to speculate about how things will be after we've met with the Romulan ambassador.

In the meantime all we know is that they are alien to any nationality or culture known on this planet . . .

'We' don't know any such thing.

. . . which makes their origin both alien and unidentified.

The internal contradiction in this oxymoronic 'conclusion' totally escapes you, doesn't it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Since the definition of null hypothesis and its working principle rely on statistical probability and observation ( Wikipedia ), then the null hypothesis above has already been falsified by USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14:

The null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin can only be falsified by producing evidence of a non-mundane one.

Does USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14 contain such evidence?

"In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion."

Gosh! There's a surprise. No evidence.

Still, trying to use statistics to probablise your flying saucers into existence is at least a change from trying to define them into being.

You know the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics", Mr Fology? It was born of arguments like yours.

NOTE: I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goalposts some more by denying that the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesis is relevant and that statistical analysis doesn't count as scientific evidence.

Oh, I don't know. Not all statistical analysis needs to be discounted.

Lets analyse these numbers:

• Number of UFOs reported world-wide, ever: millions (approximate)
  
  
• Number of alien flying saucers discovered: zero

Ohnoes! A divide by zero error! That can't be good.

As I mentioned before, I'll let you all know when the aliens grant me my license to sell Mother Ship tours because that's the only evidence the skeptics here will ever accept.

Hmm . . .

It's all coming together, Mr Fology. Accroches-toi à ton rêve.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So rather than just producing evidence that one of the millions, billions or untold numbers of UFOs were actually alien in origin we get a sarcastic response about mothership tours.

To be clear, here is STILL the only requirement to prove UFOs are alien: Find one piece of evidnce that one report was actually of an alien craft. Not a claim by a witness, not an ever changing story, a piece of evidence. Just one will do.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you have any physical evidence that UFOs are not of a mundane origin? I'll alert the Nobel committee immediately.

There's the goalpost moving I mentioned we would see after I illustrated how the skeptic's own criteria ( the null hypothesis ) when used exactly how it was designed to be used ( in the context of statistical analysis ) shows that UFOs are not of mundane origin.

Despite your prattling waffle, Mr Fology, the goalposts are right where they've always been - waiting for someone (or something) to zoom through them in a flying saucer.

Now they want a flying saucer ride ... sorry but I still don't have my Mothership Tour License from the Galactic Federation. I am however taking reservations ...

Far too many people already visualise you in this way. It really isn't something that you want to encourage.

 

[Akhenaten]

And above we have the denial of evidence ( Project Blue Book Special Report 14 ).

Jesus Klingon Christ, ufology. Pretending that a 60-year-old statistical analysis of a heap of people saying "I saw something!" is evidence for one thing and one thing only.

Credulity.

So now we'll see them move goalposts some more and/or something to the effect that the null hypothesis isn't really meant to work the way the Wikipedia article describes it.

That you've started talking to the Choir Invisible again is about all I can see, and it's NAGL.

Anyway, we don't really need Wikipedia to tell us that the null hypothesis - that all UFOs are of mundane origin - works by requiring itself to be overturned by the production of a single non-mundane "FO".

An eight-year-old should be able to explain this to you. Is there one handy where you are?

Probably coupled with more proclamations and mockery ... yawn ... I must really be getting desperate for entertainment.

As I've mentioned earlier, Mr Fology, using this kind of ironic self-deprecation for humourous effect only works when it's obviously not meant to be taken literally.

When it actually matches the audience's perception of the reality of the situation it becomes kind of tragic.

I really would try to find another route to comedy central if I were you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo,

There is nothing irrelevant about the quote I picked regardless of its age or other definitions.

It's good of you to admit your dishonesty in cherry picking a definition that you know to be superseded by others. Now if you could just get past the tipping point of admitting the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax was made up out of whole cloth and you've been changing the details of it as the contradictions are pointed out to you.

It's one of many supporting definitions found in the history and evolution of the term UFO.

A superseded and outdated one which you dishonestly cling to so that you can support your delusions.

You just choose to ignore the fact that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, usually of extraterrestrial origin and used synonymousyly with phrases like "flying saucer"

No, you dishonestly choose to want to make it mean that. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. If you mean Alien Space Ship, just say Alien Space Ship. Of course, you will have to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

which you know you can't do.

... also believed to be craft of alien origin.

It's good that you can admit that it is only a belief that the pseudoscientific credulous have. That's what makes UFOlogy a pseudoscience. You prove it every time you post.

I don't know why you even bother to deny it anymore.

Oh yes, you do know why everyone denies it, even including the other pseudoscientific credulous believers on that other forum. How many of them have you convinced?

It must have something to do with the entertainment value.

LOL. Ok, you did type one true thing!

To avoid breaking with tradition here are another couple of quotes:

UFO ( Oxford English Dictionary )

An unidentified flying object; a ‘flying saucer’.

Flying Saucer: ( Encarta Dictionary )

disk-shaped UFO: a disk-shaped flying object believed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It's good that you can admit that you have a dishonest penchant for cherry picking definitions and spamming them here, even after it's been shown how dishonest you are in doing so.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resume,

True. If we knew where these alien craft came from and had some cultural or diplomatic relationship with them, then they would only be alien in a sense similar to any other foreign national ( as in illegal alien ).

First you need to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Until you do that, you are simply dishonest in your mischaracterisation of any UFO as alien. If you mean Alien Space Ship, say Alien Space Ship.

In the meantime all we know is that they are alien to any nationality or culture known on this planet, which makes their origin both alien and unidentified.

How do you know that? Did a giant bunny rabbit tell you? Will you ever provide evidence for your assertion? And if you've identified them, why do you call them Unidentified Flying Objects?

 

[RoboTimbo]

There's the goalpost moving I mentioned we would see after I illustrated how the skeptic's own criteria ( the null hypothesis ) when used exactly how it was designed to be used ( in the context of statistical analysis ) shows that UFOs are not of mundane origin. Now they want a flying saucer ride ... sorry but I still don't have my Mothership Tour License from the Galactic Federation. I am however taking reservations ...

The fallacy you repeatedly use here is called "Strawman". You should be intimately familiar with it by now, you've used it so many times.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And above we see the predicted response on how the null hypothesis, developed by a statistician, and used by establishing probabilities based on observation, as outlined in the Wikipedia article, is simply ignored and replaced by some watered down personal "high school" version in order to prop up an argument.

We also see continued avoidance of the fact that the word UFO is meant to convey different things in different contexts e.g. in UFO reports or in casual conversation or in an investigative capacity ( historical or otherwise ). Such avoidance ( intentional or otherwise ) only serves to cloud the issue. What are the skeptics really after here? Are we not supposed to be trying to clarify the issue instead?

We're after evidence that some UFOs are alien in origin. None has been forthcoming. The pseudoscientists here are after getting people to believe their stories and practicing their pseudoscience.

Lastly, we've already established that no sufficient material evidence is readily available that would conclusively prove that UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited planet Earth. So what is the real argument? Is it that it's not reasonable to believe any of the the thousands of unexplained reports? Why is that? Is it just because skeptics like to call everyone else liars or hoaxers or incompetent?

Since you've established that there is no evidence that any UFOs are Alien Space Ships, why do you dishonestly continue to say "UFO ( alien craft )"? Is it that you are a dishonest pseudoscientist trying to maintain his bunny rabbit delusions? Are you trying to distance yourself from the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[Akhenaten]

Lastly, we've already established that no sufficient material evidence is readily available that would conclusively prove that UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited planet Earth.

Cool.​

/thread​

Thanks for playing.​

 

[carlitos]

Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen a faerie myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that faeries ( in the garden ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen a bigfoot myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that bigfoot ( sasquach ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen Jesus myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that Jesus ( Son of God ) has probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen a ghost myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that ghosts ( spirits of the dead ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen The Virgin of Guadalupe myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that the Virgin ( of Guadalupe ) has probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen a medium myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that mediums ( communicators with the dead ) probably have these powers, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen the Loch Ness Monster myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that the monster ( Nessie ) has probably been in the Loch, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen a psychic myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that psychics ( seers of the future ) probably have these powers, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Had I not seen Snad's Intraspacial Fishes myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that Snad's Stuff ( Intraspacial Fishes ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.​

The null hypothesis for all of the above is that they don't exist or haven't been here, and by just showing one example the null could be disproved? Wouldn't that be cool?

 

[Akhenaten]

First you need to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Until you do that, you are simply dishonest in your mischaracterisation of any UFO as alien. If you mean Alien Space Ship, say Alien Space Ship.

It really is a mystery, isn't it?

Perhaps it's just that "Alienspaceshipology" is too hard for the kiddies to get their little mouths around.

I can feel a new logo coming on . . .

 

[carlitos]

Resume,

The reality is that the vast majority of verbal usage and portrayals of the word UFO ( in its entirety ) are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, usually extraterrestrial. So it's not I who is failing to recognize this fact in face of the overwhelming obviousness of it.

I'm curious about this whole UFO "definition" debate. I found this:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unidentified+flying+object



(underlining mine)

So from that, it seems that while you can't necessarily wholesale equate "UFO = alien craft", you can't necessarily dismiss that usage, either. Any comments?

With respect to the other posters, I don't actually have a problem with this. In casual usage, people do sometimes use "UFO" as shorthand for "flying saucer."

Of course, this changes ufology's argument not a whit. You can't define something into existence with a word. Otherwise, you'd have to explain Thor, Narnia, ghosts, leprauchauns, bigfoot, etc. We have words that mean those things, but it doesn't mean those things exist in real life.

If he were honest, ufology would just say "alien craft" and stop messing about with semantics. But then he'd have to re-christen his pseudoscience of ufology, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[ufology]

Could you demonstrate that your claim of this limitation of the null hypothesis is not simply an argument form authority built through cherry picking and distortion of the Wikipedia article? The most effective way to do this would be to explain what elements of the null hypothesis cause such a limitation to exist.

Similarly, instead of resorting to dodgy appeals to authority with regards to your preferred definition, please present a case for the utility of your definition in the context of honest investigation of the phenomena.

Unexplained means just that. It does not mean insert favorite speculative idea as fact.

Sideroxylon,

I see no reason to disbelieve that the Wikopedia article on the null hypothesis. What you are missing however, is that even though the Project Blue book Special Report 14 statistical analysis establishes that it is reasonable to believe that the objects in some UFO reports are alien craft, it contains no substantial physical evidence and therefore is not the kind of proof that is ultimately required by those who have never seen a UFO for themselves. It should however be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a genuine mystery involving material craft for which no explanation of origin or purpose has been established.

So let's deal with the concept of "unexplained". When you say, to quote, "Unexplained means just that. It does not mean insert favorite speculative idea as fact." you are making an obvious statement for which I take no issue. However merely being unexplained is far different than cannot be explained as something manmade or natural even when given what should be sufficient information to do so. An unremarkable vague object in the distance is unexplained. So are UFOs. But UFOs are a different and specific class of unexplained phenomena.

To illustrate further, the unremarkable vague object in the distance may become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't make it a UFO, it just makes it the subject of a UFO report. However if that vague object instantly zooms over to you with a maneuver impossible for any Earthly technology and doesn't look like any Earthly technology, then what had merely been a vague unexplained object in the distance becomes a UFO. There is still no certain explanation for it, but it's far from being anything "mundane". For all practical purposes it is an alien craft, but that's not an explanation ... just a description, which why we have the ubiquitous depictions of UFOs as some sort of alien spaceship, usually a flying saucer.

Lastly, just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real. Skeptics choose to doubt the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ) while those who have seen them for themselves have no reservations. Such is the basic state of affairs with respect to the issue. But it doesn't end there. We also have highly polarized fanatics on each side ranging from ufology bashers to contactee cult religions. Add to that the scientific and cultural factors and it isn't surprising why so many people find ufology to be such an interesting topic. Yes UFOs have remained an unexplained phenomenon ... and a real one. Certainly nobody here, including me, knows exactly what they are.

 

[Akhenaten]

With respect to the other posters, I don't actually have a problem with this. In casual usage, people do sometimes use "UFO" as shorthand for "flying saucer."

No, I don't really have a problem with it either. It's Mr Fology's attempting to make out that this is only, or even the most correct, meaning for the acronym that causes all the angst.

Of course, this changes ufology's argument not a whit. You can't define something into existence with a word. Otherwise, you'd have to explain Thor, Narnia, ghosts, leprauchauns, bigfoot, etc. We have words that mean those things, but it doesn't mean those things exist in real life.

No, and it doesn't help him with his insistence that unidentified=non-mundane=alien either.

If he were honest, ufology would just say "alien craft" and stop messing about with semantics. But then he'd have to re-christen his pseudoscience of ufology, and that ain't gonna happen.

I'm putting a little something together that might help him with that.

 

[Resume]

Lastly, just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real. Skeptics choose to doubt the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ) while those who have seen them for themselves have no reservations. Such is the basic state of affairs with respect to the issue. But it doesn't end there. We also have highly polarized fanatics on each side ranging from ufology bashers to contactee cult religions. Add to that the scientific and cultural factors and it isn't surprising why so many people find ufology to be such an interesting topic. Yes UFOs have remained an unexplained phenomenon ... and a real one.

You know how you change the highlighted? Provide credible evidence.

Got any?