UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

OK GeeMack ... have it your way, don't be reasonable, and don't expect any responses from me for another hundred posts.

No I think he should continue being reasonable.
One day you may BEGIN to be reasonable and make an attempt to understand the null hypothosis you hold in such contempt. Maybe people will just forget all your other posts?

 

[ufology]

All UFOs are of mundane origin. Haven't you read any of this thread at all?

Apparently I missed the part about how you are 100% sure ... how you were able to come to this conclusion with such unreserved certainty ... as if you've actually got proof ... which you don't. So I'm just curious how your double standard is justified. It's not as though this topic is something obvious that you don't need to provide evidence for ... so you are not relieved of your duty to provide evidence any more than I am. So if you've got sufficient evidence to prove your position, let's have it. Just start with one hitherto case that has remained "unknown". Then we can move on to the next 600 or so from the Blue Book files, and then those from the NICAP files and those from the CUFOS files. I have a lot of patience so let's get started shall we? Don't be afraid ... Astro is doing a great job with SUNlite ... he is making some genuine and constructive progress. Let's see you do the same.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Apparently I missed the part about how you are 100% sure ...

You missed all the posts about the null hypothosis then? It's very simple, untill evidence is supplied that one or more are conclusively non-mundane, we treat them as having a valid and mundane explanation that has not been identified. We treat them as part of the known and knowable universe that was not correctly identified, not assuming them to be something for which there is an utter absence of evidence.

Or we treat all equally unsupported hypothises as equally valid. Ergo we assume they are as likely to be an alien craft as they are to be witches or a yeti on a pogo stick.

How remiss of you to have missed every single post that included the null.

 

[Akhenaten]

Apparently I missed the part about how you are 100% sure ...

<sooky sooky la la>

Yes, it appears that way. Perhaps if you were to read the thread?

 

[Stray Cat]

Apparently I missed the part about how you are 100% sure

Apparently you missed all the posts about the null hypothesis and how it is a safe assumption to make that prevents the pointless task of having to refute every crackpot silly claim of aliens in flying saucers... therefore keeping the burden of proof in the correct place.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Since this is a new year, I would like to make a prediction.

In spite of the overwhelming amount of wishful thinking by some people, there will be no new, good evidence of alien visitation during this year that will be scientifically credible any more than before.

If I am wrong, I will be the first to eat my hat.

 

[ufology]

However, we are describing a rare event. That being a bright bolide meteor. We are not describing a "falling star". Like all the other misperceived fireballs and re-entries, there is the possibility he misperceived the event.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. I have seen my share of point meteors before. However, he did not report a head on pass. He perceived this. If it were flying perpendicular to his line of sight as he described, the initial appearance would have been a normal meteor (a point source) that would be a moderate brilliance. However, once it brightened to bolide/fireball status, it would appear to have gone broadside to him. Bolides/fireballs are not very common. In all my years of astronomical observing (thousands and thousands of hours), I have only seen maybe a few dozen that were brighter than -6. Many of those were during the Leonids/Perseids/and Geminid meteor showers. They are not very common.

Sure Astro, no argument from me on those points, and again, good stuff in the latest issue of SUNlite. Thanks!

 

[mike3]

Apparently I missed the part about how you are 100% sure ... how you were able to come to this conclusion with such unreserved certainty ... as if you've actually got proof ... which you don't. So I'm just curious how your double standard is justified. It's not as though this topic is something obvious that you don't need to provide evidence for ... so you are not relieved of your duty to provide evidence any more than I am. So if you've got sufficient evidence to prove your position, let's have it. Just start with one hitherto case that has remained "unknown". Then we can move on to the next 600 or so from the Blue Book files, and then those from the NICAP files and those from the CUFOS files. I have a lot of patience so let's get started shall we? Don't be afraid ... Astro is doing a great job with SUNlite ... he is making some genuine and constructive progress. Let's see you do the same.

As mentioned, it's a null hypothesis. Given an "unknown" case, we assume it is mundane until further evidence appears that it isn't. So far, that hasn't happened. It is not a "certainty" but rather a rebuttable presumption made when there is a lack of evidence otherwise. And it's not just for ufology, it's a part of general scientific methodology.

 

[ufology]

As mentioned, it's a null hypothesis. Given an "unknown" case, we assume it is mundane until further evidence appears that it isn't. So far, that hasn't happened. It is not a "certainty" but rather a rebuttable presumption made when there is a lack of evidence otherwise. And it's not just for ufology, it's a part of general scientific methodology.

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

 

[EHocking]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another.

Yet this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

Yet, this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

 

[23_Tauri]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

Here we go again.....

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

Then why have you been so dead-set against the existence of witches?

 

[Resume]

.
The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future, and given the rate our technology is currently evolving, a century or two should be about all that it takes. By then our own science will likely have solved both energy and aging problems, if not many more.

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

You seem to assume when is suits.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another.

If that's really as much of an understanding as you have of a null hypothesis then you're wasting you're time here. You've learned nothing and show no signs of being able to.

That is a classic argument from ignorance.

Bollocks.

The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

That's an awful lot of smug coming from someone who talks to rabbits.

 

[carlitos]

So I can't safely assume that a flipped coin will not turn into a butterfly? Hmm. Should be an interesting 2012, then.

 

[23_Tauri]

Witch reminds me....

I've not missed the point at all. In the context that it is being used, alien is synonymous with unknown because after careful evaluation by the study group, UFOs are so strange and mysterious that they could not be identified as manmade objects or phenomena. By logical extension they therefore seem to fall outside the boudaries of our global civilization, and that makes them alien the same way Caucasians were once alien to North America or an invading organism is alien to our body, or a non-national is alien to the country he or she is residing. Alien implies extraterrestrial but does not necessitate it.

So, by this definition of yours, alien includes witches, right folo?

You forgot to mention the probability of the aliens liking Kraft Dinner ... or Seinfeld re-runs. The probabilities based on actual case studies ... not your presonal opinions, have already been calculated by independent analysts and the result is that the probability is so high that UFOs are real as to be a virtual certainty. Do they come from a civilization on another planet? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they come from Earth, so where then?

Covens?

 

[Stray Cat]

That's an awful lot of smug coming from someone who talks to rabbits.

To be fair, talking to rabbits is no big deal... it's when they talk back to you that it becomes silly... but no one would ever claim tha.... oh hang on.

 

[Toke]

If that's really as much of an understanding as you have of a null hypothesis then you're wasting you're time here. You've learned nothing and show no signs of being able to.

This.

 

[GeeMack]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

So it sounds like you're saying you can't just assume something is one thing because it hasn't been proved to be another. Let's review that, because sometimes the dishonesty in the "ufologists'" argument is muck-boot deep, and I don't want to find out we're quoting something that will just be denied a little further down the page. So you actually take the position that "you can't just assume something is one thing because it hasn't been proved to be another"?

Maybe you're saying you've changed your position on UFOs...

[...] UFOs ( alien craft exist ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...] UFO ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft )[...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFO ( alien craft )[...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFO ( alien craft ) [...]

But I'm willing to bet you haven't. I'd say your argument, "you can't just assume something is one thing because it hasn't been proved to be another," is lip service. I bet at most it's a standard you think other people should be expected to meet. But through the magic of a little dishonest redefining of words and some special pleading, I bet you don't think "ufologists" should be required to meet that same standard. Prove me wrong. How about you never use the dishonest argument from ignorance, "UFOs ( alien craft )", again.

 

[AdMan]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

The irony is palpable.

Isn't it, Mr. UFO ( alien craft )?