UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

The entire working principle of the null hypothesis is based on probability, yet you tell me to forget statistical significance.

There's only one statistic that really matters, Folo, and if you can change it you'll have overturned the null hypothesis.

Number of alien spaceships found, ever: 0

This is the best example I've seen yet of your self-serving ignorance of the facts in the face of independent information such as the Wikipedia article.

Is this the Wikipedia article listing all the alien spaceships that we've found?

I'll bet it's a short oone.

And I've made no determination based on "wishful thinking".

You've done nothing else since you arrived here.

The study was performed by independent analysists who used official USAF records and although the conclusions don't use the words "alien space ships" neither do I, I use the word "alien" which I have pointed out is synonymous with "unknown" when viewed in the context of the study.

Perhaps if you started using the same meanings for words as everyone else you wouldn't have quite so much trouble getting your point across.

Explained further here.

No, that's not explaning further at all. That's what we call "digging a deeper hole".

 

[ufology]

So everyone has aliens in their pockets and hit & run drivers are aliens, according to ufology. You did look up synonym as I advised, didn't you?

Robo, your out of context example has nothing to do with the point of the conversation. We aren't takling about what is in your pocket or drivers of cars. We're talking about objects that after investigation have no probable explanation based on what we know with respect to our civilization or the natural world on planet Earth, therefore by extention UFOs probably come from someplace outside our civilization ... which by definition makes them alien to our civilization. Beyond that we don't know enough to say "space craft" and I've made that clear before, yet the skeptics here continue misrepresenting me on that point. So again, certainly one possibility is extraterrestrial , but that is only a theory, the word alien does not neccesitate ET as the only conclusion, and the data from the statistical study doesn't address that specific issue.

 

[Akhenaten]

So again, certainly one possibility is extraterrestrial , but that is only a theory, the word alien does not neccesitate ET as the only conclusion, and the data from the statistical study doesn't address that specific issue.

Why don't you share your thoughts on some of the other possibilities with us?

 

[23_Tauri]

The entire working principle of the null hypothesis is based on probability, yet you tell me to forget statistical significance.

It will, once you find ONE Alien Space Ship. Then we can start talking levels of significance, mmm...kay?

This is the best example I've seen yet of your self-serving ignorance of the facts in the face of independent information such as the Wikipedia article.

Ooh, shall we have a poll on that, see if anyone here agrees with you that I'm the one who's ignorant of the null hypothesis? That'd be good, because then we'd have some actual data that we can play with, and from which we can make some statistics. In the way that we can't with Alien Space Ships.

And I've made no determination based on "wishful thinking".

Let me refer readers to this post, helpfully put together by GeeMack, and then see whether you're making any determinations based on wishful thinking. Or not.

The study was performed by independent analysists who used official USAF records and although the conclusions don't use the words "alien space ships" neither do I, I use the word "alien" which I have pointed out is synonymous with "unknown" when viewed in the context of the study. Explained further here.

There you go trying to define aliens into existence again. Unknown means we don't know what it is, not "OMFG aliens!"

Whether they're flying around in a spaceship or under their own steam makes no difference in the light of the fact that not a single alien has been found. That's like me trying to argue that it's still a witch even though she's left her broomstick at home tonight and is using a special flying balm rubbed into her skin instead.

 

[23_Tauri]

There's only one statistic that really matters, Folo, and if you can change it you'll have overturned the null hypothesis.

Number of alien spaceships found, ever: 0

'xactly. At the moment, Follo has zero aliens. One really doesn't need to get into statistical significance and confidence levels to understand this really simple fact.

Foo, all you seem to be doing is trying to overcomplicate things in order to cover up your glaring lack of evidence for aliens.

 

[GeeMack]

The entire working principle of the null hypothesis is based on probability, yet you tell me to forget statistical significance. This is the best example I've seen yet of your self-serving ignorance of the facts in the face of independent information such as the Wikipedia article.

Speaking of self-serving ignorance... Of everything that was ever initially unidentified but later determined to be some specific thing, just exactly how many of them, or what percentage if you prefer, turned out to be alien craft? There's a very simple question for you. Can we expect a non-answer amounting to more self-serving ignorance, or an honest answer?

And I've made no determination based on "wishful thinking".

Sure you have. You've equated "unidentified" to "alien craft". You've done it again and again. Your wishful thinking has gotten in the way of all the other explanations that are exactly as well evidenced as aliens. Witches and gods come immediately to mind. So yes, you have made a determination based on wishful thinking, and it would be a lie to say you haven't. Then again, we've already noted that dishonesty is a staple in the "ufologists'" toolkit.

The study was performed by independent analysists who used official USAF records and although the conclusions don't use the words "alien space ships" neither do I, I use the word "alien" which I have pointed out is synonymous with "unknown" when viewed in the context of the study. Explained further here.

No, that's another lie. (1) You frequently use the term "alien craft". You've clearly explained that you mean flying things piloted by extraterrestrial or heretofore unknown Earthbound beings. There has been no ambiguity in that. And (2) "alien" is not used synonymously with "unknown" except in the dishonest redefinition strategy of wishful thinking "ufologists". It might make it easier to rationalize the complete failure to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. And it might make it easier to dishonestly blame the rational, helpful skeptics for that failure. But an argument constructed from transparent dishonesty is not going to help you demonstrate the legitimacy of your claim. Falsifying your very own null hypothesis on the other hand, just might help...

All UFOs are of mundane origin.​

Funny, isn't it, how the scientific process has made it as easy as it possibly can be for you to support your claim, yet you prefer to play pseudoscience instead. And using the pseudoscience of "ufology" you haven't made the tiniest bit of progress at all, not a lick.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo, your out of context example has nothing to do with the point of the conversation. We aren't takling about what is in your pocket or drivers of cars.

The context was you claim "alien" is synonymous with "unknown". It isn't. If it is, then my example is not out of context. Which is it? Either you're wrong that alien is synonymous with unknown or you're wrong that it's out of context.

We're talking about objects that after investigation have no probable explanation based on what we know with respect to our civilization or the natural world on planet Earth, therefore by extention UFOs probably come from someplace outside our civilization

No, that's just your wishful thinking. Your hoax, for example, doesn't deal with an object at all. You're trying to redefine "unidentified" to mean "identified". You are being dishonest. Again.

... which by definition makes them alien to our civilization.

No, it makes you dishonest in your attempt to redefine aliens into existence because you have no evidence for them. It didn't work with your fellow believers so why do you think it will work here?

Beyond that we don't know enough to say "space craft" and I've made that clear before, yet the skeptics here continue misrepresenting me on that point. So again, certainly one possibility is extraterrestrial , but that is only a theory, the word alien does not neccesitate ET as the only conclusion, and the data from the statistical study doesn't address that specific issue.

The one possibility you single out is the one that has never been shown to happen so, again, it is just your wishful thinking and redefinition fallacies.

Address my concerns about your deliberate misunderstanding of the null hypothesis. Thanks.

 

[ufology]

'xactly. At the moment, Follo has zero aliens. One really doesn't need to get into statistical significance and confidence levels to understand this really simple fact.

Foo, all you seem to be doing is trying to overcomplicate things in order to cover up your glaring lack of evidence for aliens.

Since you think there is no point in studying things that are rarely seen, and you aren't interested in discussing specific cases to determine issues that don't pertain to material evidence, why do you bother making any comments here at all? You're just telling everyone here including me something we already know.

Why not go take part in the homeopathy discussion where there are material factors, medical studies and real patients who have had real and verifiable treatments? That would seem to be more suited to your point of view on the reality or legitimacy of things?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Since you think there is no point in studying things that are rarely seen, and you aren't interested in discussing specific cases to determine issues that don't pertain to material evidence, why do you bother making any comments here at all? You're just telling everyone here including me something we already know.

Why not go take part in the homeopathy discussion where there are material factors, medical studies and real patients who have had real and verifiable treatments? That would seem to be more suited to your point of view on the reality or legitimacy of things?

You agree that homeopathy has more evidence for it than UFOs as Alien Space Ships then? It has been noted that witches are twice as likely to be real as UFOs as Alien Space Ships and were determined in a court of law to exist.

Why are you so dead set against witches?

 

[23_Tauri]

Since you think there is no point in studying things that are rarely seen,

Do you mean UFOs or Aliens (with or without space ships)?

and you aren't interested in discussing specific cases to determine issues that don't pertain to material evidence,

I am interested in discussing individual cases, but how often do we ever get to do that on this thread? Sadly, not very often.

why do you bother making any comments here at all? You're just telling everyone here including me something we already know.

What is it that everyone including you but not me already knows? Sorry, have I missed something? Are you all in on a sooper seekrit thing?

Why not go take part in the homeopathy discussion where there are material factors, medical studies and real patients who have had real and verifiable treatments? That would seem to be more suited to your point of view on the reality or legitimacy of things?

What?

To be fair, at least with a subject like the effectiveness of homeopathy treatments one could design an experiment, with dependent and independent variables, and confidence levels, and then work out what the chances are (i.e. statistical significance) of homeopathic treatment a causing event b. This one cannot do with alien space ships, even though you're still hung up there being probability involved.

 

[John Albert]

Beautiful!

"Emmentalist" indeed...

Incidentally, for dinner the other night I made some brats with some nice homemade spaetzle, topped with grated Emmentaler cheese.

 

[ufology]

Why don't you share your thoughts on some of the other possibilities with us?

• Unexplained natural phenomena. Examples would be the Earthlights theory or the ball lighting theory.
• A human effort that is so secret that it is virtually cut off from civilization. This would be something beyond projects like those that that take place at Area 51 or other super-secret installations.
• Perhaps we share the planet with an unknown cuture or species capable of producing craft that match the description of UFOs.
• Some people have proposed time travelers from Earth's future. However I don't personally see backwards time travel as possible in any way that could make this theory possible.

 

[Marduk]

• Unexplained natural phenomena. Examples would be the Earthlights theory or the ball lighting theory.
• A human effort that is so secret that it is virtually cut off from civilization. This would be something beyond projects like those that that take place at Area 51 or other super-secret installations.
• Perhaps we share the planet with an unknown cuture or species capable of producing craft that match the description of UFOs.
• Some people have proposed time travelers from Earth's future. However I don't personally see backwards time travel as possible in any way that could make this theory possible.

• 
  +
• fireflies
  +
• hoaxers

 

[Sledge]

The entire working principle of the null hypothesis is based on probability

What.

 

[ufology]

Do you mean UFOs or Aliens (with or without space ships)?


I am interested in discussing individual cases, but how often do we ever get to do that on this thread? Sadly, not very often.


What is it that everyone including you but not me already knows? Sorry, have I missed something? Are you all in on a sooper seekrit thing?


What?

To be fair, at least with a subject like the effectiveness of homeopathy treatments one could design an experiment, with dependent and independent variables, and confidence levels, and then work out what the chances are (i.e. statistical significance) of homeopathic treatment a causing event b. This one cannot do with alien space ships, even though you're still hung up there being probability involved.

You get my point exactly. So either go debate homeopathy or accept that in this discussion it doesn't do any good to keep reminding us that we don't have the kind of evidence you want. We already know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider whatever clues we have, including reports from witnesses. A positive skeptical contribution can be made by pointing out logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on. These would be useful comments.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You get my point exactly. So either go debate homeopathy or accept that in this discussion it doesn't do any good to keep reminding us that we don't have the kind of evidence you want. We already know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider whatever clues we have, including reports from witnesses. A positive skeptical contribution can be made by pointing out logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on. These would be useful comments.

You get mad and don't respond when they're pointed out.

 

[ufology]

You get mad and don't respond when they're pointed out.

The only time I've gotten "mad" is when I've been the target of cyber-bullying and harassment. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the same as getting "mad". Simply pointing out weakenesses isn't he same as getting "mad". A recent example that demonstrates just how far off base you are is my commentary on the last issue of SUNlite and the RB-47 case. Have a look back and tell me how that in any way could be implied as getting "mad".

 

[GeeMack]

A positive skeptical contribution can be made by pointing out logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on. These would be useful comments.

Yes, and the skeptics have been providing that sort of commentary since the very beginning of this thread over 16,000 posts and more than 2 years ago. And still there are "ufologists" engaging in wishful thinking, dishonestly redefining terms, and making the bogus equivocation that "UFOs = alien craft". Still. And still not one single "ufologist" has attempted to falsify their very own null hypothesis which is:

All UFOs are of mundane origin.​

And still there are "ufologists" refusing to honestly answer simple questions like this...

Speaking of self-serving ignorance... Of everything that was ever initially unidentified but later determined to be some specific thing, just exactly how many of them, or what percentage if you prefer, turned out to be alien craft? There's a very simple question for you. Can we expect a non-answer amounting to more self-serving ignorance, or an honest answer?

So how about putting things in quantitative, objective perspective and answering the question? Or is it just easier to remain ignorant and pretend that "unidentified" means "alien craft" and that some people really do have conversations with rabbits?

 

[Marduk]

The only time I've gotten "mad" is when I've been the target of cyber-bullying and harassment. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the same as getting "mad". Simply pointing out weakenesses isn't he same as getting "mad". A recent example that demonstrates just how far off base you are is my commentary on the last issue of SUNlite and the RB-47 case. Have a look back and tell me how that in any way could be implied as getting "mad".

you get mad all the time, I don't think anyone here would describe you as disciplined, you're always freaking out

oh wait, did you redefine "mad" without telling anyone ?

 

[ufology]

you get mad all the time, I don't think anyone here would describe you as disciplined, you're always freaking out

oh wait, did you redefine "mad" without telling anyone ?

Ya ya Marduk ... cheers to you too !

Here's a couple of examples of my "freaking out"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7891567&postcount=15729

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7894952&postcount=15851