UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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 asked for "logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on." and yet, when those very things were being discussed, you turn your back on them and refuse to discuss them. What else are we to make of it other than you stamping your little feet?

Now, do you want to discuss "logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on." or not?

 

[RoboTimbo]

fol, you've consistently failed to address the concerns people have about your apparent deliberate misunderstanding of a null hypothesis.

When will you find the honesty to be able to address those concerns?

 

[remirol]

Really? I don't.

When someone has emotionally invested in an unsupportable belief to such an extent that it's become part of their core identity their ability to grasp concepts, evidence and arguments that blow that belief out of the water is usually fatally compromised. You'll find plenty of other examples of the phenomenon on this forum.

Especially when promoting their personal website depends very heavily on their being unable to grasp said concepts, evidence, and arguments.

Really, that's what it comes down to. I watch this thread and a number of others because I've always been interested in "space" in general. I see little reason to contribute or post most of the time, because adding one more voice to the chorus of people trying to explain to ufology how the null hypothesis works is simply not going to increase the chance that he will listen to what people are saying or respond.

In fact, it might actually increase that chance if fewer people would attempt to argue the same point. Currently, there are so many posts directed at ufology about so many different holes in his theory, it's trivial for him to pick one post to respond to that can be dragged off on a tangent while avoiding the direct questions. It's sort of a reverse version of the Gish Gallop, in a way -- with so many people chiming in, it's actually plausible for him to claim he "missed" things he just doesn't want to answer.

The core failures in his argument all seem to stem from two things, however: he doesn't (or refuses to) understand how the null hypothesis works, and he consistently believes that anecdotal, eyewitness evidence from the distant past is worth the paper it was written on. I would suggest that if any progress is to be made on this front that people (somehow) cut down on the volume of traffic here, and give him nothing to respond to except a single question. Obviously this is probably a pipe dream given the nature of webforums, but just a thought.

 

[Paul2]

By the above, I presume you mean that the only good reason to believe alien craft have visited Earth would be scientifically verfiable material evidence; in which case we disagree. While scientifically verfiable material evidence is the best we can do in the absence of firsthand experience, firshand experience combined with an analysis of the experience is also a very good reason for the witness themself. Where it falls short is when the witness tries to relay his or her experience to someone else without any scientifically verfiable material evidence to back it up. In this situation the firsthand witness cannot simply expect to be believed.

It's a fallacy to imagine that a witness could properly have one set of standards for evidence that would lead the witness to a different conclusion than someone else who is working on a different set of standards.

Because there is only one reality. The conclusion is either correct or not. For the witness and everyone else.

 

[Toke]

Really? I don't.

When someone has emotionally invested in an unsupportable belief to such an extent that it's become part of their core identity their ability to grasp concepts, evidence and arguments that blow that belief out of the water is usually fatally compromised. You'll find plenty of other examples of the phenomenon on this forum.

Well put, it just doesn't help me with my sense of disbelief.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Natural phenomena are included in the mundane category, no matter what fanciful names you give them.

• 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.

Let's hear your explanation for how an aerospace industry with capabilities above and beyond those of the one we know about plus all the infrastructure needed to support it are able to operate without a single trace of its existence ever having been revealed and without a single one of the thousands of people such an effort would require ever having spilled the beans.

This idea is even more unlikely than the space invaders one.

• Perhaps we share the planet with an unknown cuture or species capable of producing craft that match the description of UFOs.

To start with, the highlighted phrase is invalid.

They're unidentified, Folo, and therefore you don't get to describe them as 'craft'.

Secondly, this scenario is even less likely than the secret human agency mentioned above. The same objections apply with the added one that you have to come up with an explanation for where these already-here aliens originated.

You're not a Hollow Earther™ are you?

• 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.

Really???

All you're actually doing here is trying to come up with scenarios so ridiculous that the space aliens idea seems more plausible by comparison.

And failing dismally.

 

[carlitos]

Let's hear your explanation for how an aerospace industry with capabilities above and beyond those of the one we know about plus all the infrastructure needed to support it are able to operate without a single trace of its existence ever having been revealed and without a single one of the thousands of people such an effort would require ever having spilled the beans.

This idea is even more unlikely than the space invaders one.

Easy - A secret colony of Nazi babies (Project Lebensborn), on an invisible island off Ushuaia, working on saucers that have a cloaking device to mask sonic booms. They mine for all the raw materials by sneaking in and out of Antarctica, and build their stuff underground. For test-flights, they wormhole / dimensionally jump from the South Pole to the skies over Alberta (and sometimes North Texas). You have no imagination at all, do you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Easy - A secret colony of Nazi babies (Project Lebensborn), on an invisible island off Ushuaia, working on saucers that have a cloaking device to mask sonic booms. They mine for all the raw materials by sneaking in and out of Antarctica, and build their stuff underground. For test-flights, they wormhole / dimensionally jump from the South Pole to the skies over Alberta (and sometimes North Texas). You have no imagination at all, do you?

Aha! The Nazi connection explains the whole flying Volkswagen thing!

Is there any way you can weave blimps, Cape Barren Geese and witches into the story?

 

[Akhenaten]

You get my point exactly.

Yes. Having established yourself as something of a leading light in the Bleef of Ufailogy you must now seek to legitimise that bleef by creating the illusion of having discussed it seriously and at length with the Skeptics of Jreffia and having overcome all of their objections with your mad debating skillz.

Even Rramjet the Obfuscator, had he not Rredefined himself into another Rrealm, would tell you that it's been an epic failure.

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.

Actually, it's the evidence you want. I'm pretty sure you'll find that the skeptics are happy enough to follow the evidence that they already have.

And reminding people like you that you don't have any evidence is one of the raisons d'être of this place, so there's no point in bleating about.

We already know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider whatever clues we have, including reports from witnesses.

Those aren't clues - they're claims.

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.

Indeed, and that contribution has been well made.

That you ignore it completely is of little import; the real targets of the arguments against your nonsense are those playing along at home.

Please don't flatter yourself by thinking that it's all about you.

 

[ufology]

It's a fallacy to imagine that a witness could properly have one set of standards for evidence that would lead the witness to a different conclusion than someone else who is working on a different set of standards.

Because there is only one reality. The conclusion is either correct or not. For the witness and everyone else.

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe? It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe. For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe. But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to. Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality", the issue is proving to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think. The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population is aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

 

[carlitos]

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe? It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe. For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe. But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to. Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality", the issue is proving to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think. The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population are aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

But your UFO experience was just a bunch of made-up stories regarding your mis-remembered tale of mis-attributing evidence of aliens to a light in the sky. Just like most other UFO stories, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You were high and tripped out on fireflies or you made the whole thing up. It makes no difference, because reality is completely indifferent to stuff like yours.

Your efforts to feel superior to the other "part of the population" that doesn't believe in your nonsense are obvious. You want to feel special so you make up stories. This approach, and the logical fallacies that you use to argue about it here, make you no different and no more special than the mystics, bigfoot proponents, "genesis code" discoverers and religious nuts that post here. Sorry, you're just a guy who believes in nonsense. Nothing special or unusual about that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe? It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe. For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe. But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to. Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality", the issue is proving to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think. The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population is aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

I "think" I saw something that I couldn't identify in the early hours of the morning while camping in the outback. It was a light that "appeared" to be moving slowly and I could not hear asociated sound. It could have been any number of mundane things. It could have been Venus. I could have dreamt it. I would be very dishonest to attempt to reconstruct the observation circumstances from an old memory. How much better is your story than mine?

 

[ufology]

Really? I don't.

When someone has emotionally invested in an unsupportable belief to such an extent that it's become part of their core identity their ability to grasp concepts, evidence and arguments that blow that belief out of the water is usually fatally compromised. You'll find plenty of other examples of the phenomenon on this forum.

Sure Pixel, your point has some merit. It's the part about "other examples" that I take issue with, because it implies here that you are referencing me in particular.

In actuality, if you review my comments, you will find that I have referenced the independent articles in Wikipedia several times in support of my position on the null hypothesis, including a reference to the statistician who developed it and the statistical principles which are used in applying it.

Then I've compared that to independent studies on the topic we are discussing. Yet all I get back in response are comments that I "don't understand" and off topic commentary that doubles as mockery, most recently involving witches; and those kinds of response seems typical of the skeptics here when someone doesn't agree with them. There are countless examples of such on this thread alone.

So perhaps you might want to have an honest look at who seems to be blinded by their "emotional attachment". Start with the skeptics who deny the validity of the statistical principles of the null hypothesis as outlined in Wikipedia.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe?

Concordance with objective reality and a lack of the resources, especially time, that it would take us as individuals to test everything for ourselves.

It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe.

No, it's probably one of the worst reasons. The one person in the world best equipped to fool you is yourself.

This is why repeatability is such an important cornerstone of science.

For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe.

Indeed. That's why nobody here has argued against the existence of UFOs. There's absolutely no doubt that they exist.

But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to.

Of course not. That's why anecdotes ≠ evidence.

Duh.

Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality" . . .

O rly? That's a new development.

. . . the issue is proving providing evidence to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think.

Exactly. It's almost as if you're starting to understand what the null hypothesis is all about.

The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population is aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

Which isn't one reality at all. You've forgotten Phillip K Dick's maxim.

 

[carlitos]

Aha! The Nazi connection explains the whole flying Volkswagen thing!

Is there any way you can weave blimps, Cape Barren Geese and witches into the story?

A secret colony of Nazi babies (Project Lebensborn), were smuggled out of Germany with much secret technology from the likes of BASF and Volkswagen. They are based on an invisible island off Ushuaia, are working on saucers that have a cloaking device to mask sonic booms. They mine for all the raw materials by sneaking in and out of Antarctica via blimp, and build their stuff underground in a secret factory. For test-flights, they wormhole / dimensionally jump from the South Pole to the skies over Alberta (and sometimes North Texas). The whole thing is powered by dung from Cape Barren Geese, which is secretly harvested in Cape Otway* by the High Priestess of the Coven of the Silver Dragon (Yarra Valley, VIC).

It's a little Southern-Hemisphere-centric, but it's as plausible as anything we've read in these pages.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's a little Southern-Hemisphere-centric, but it's as plausible as anything we've read in these pages.

Absolutely.

 

[ufology]

I "think" I saw something that I couldn't identify in the early hours of the morning while camping in the outback. It was a light that "appeared" to be moving slowly and I could not hear asociated sound. It could have been any number of mundane things. It could have been Venus. I could have dreamt it. I would be very dishonest to attempt to reconstruct the observation circumstances from an old memory. How much better is your story than mine?

You forgot to mention the part where I said "depending on the details of the experience". If you think your experience could have been any number of mundane things, then you cannot conclude from it that what you saw was something extraordinary. However if you watched the object do things that no known natural or manmade object can do, that is another story, and it is perfectly honest for you to record and study various aspects of the event to help you come to some understanding of it. If after doing so you still believe you saw something that cannot be explained to your satisfaction, then I believe you would have a good reason for saying you saw something alien. Do I think that your experience constitutes material and verifiable scientific evidence? No. However that doesn't mean I would offhandedly reject it either, which seems to be where we part ways.

 

[Akhenaten]

<waaaaah>

So perhaps you might want to have an honest look at who seems to be blinded by their "emotional attachment".

Theists mostly. Plus the bigfeeters, 9/11 conspiracists and everyone in the politics sub-forums.

And you.

Start with the skeptics who deny the validity of the statistical principles of the null hypothesis as outlined in Wikipedia.

Why? Has there been a change in the number of times the null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin has been overturned?

Still zero then?

Not much of a statistic, Mr Fology.​

 

[Sideroxylon]

You forgot to mention the part where I said "depending on the details of the experience". If you think your experience could have been any number of mundane things, then you cannot conclude from it that what you saw was something extraordinary. However if you watched the object do things that no known natural or manmade object can do, that is another story, and it is perfectly honest for you to record and study various aspects of the event to help you come to some understanding of it. If after doing so you still believe you saw something that cannot be explained to your satisfaction, then I believe you would have a good reason for saying you saw something alien. Do I think that your experience constitutes material and verifiable scientific evidence? No. However that doesn't mean I would offhandedly reject it either, which seems to be where we part ways.

It was unusual in appearance as I remember - the lights gave it somewhat of a wireframe spheroid appearance. The reason I don't attribute it to aliens is that I did not have sufficient evidence to come to that conclusion. Come the morning light, I could not write it off not being half asleep or a dream. And now it is too far in the past to say anything reliable at all. I do not know what it was, if my recollections of it are correct, or even if I saw anything at all.

 

[GeeMack]

You forgot to mention the part where I said "depending on the details of the experience". If you think your experience could have been any number of mundane things, then you cannot conclude from it that what you saw was something extraordinary. However if you watched the object do things that no known natural or manmade object can do, that is another story, and it is perfectly honest for you to record and study various aspects of the event to help you come to some understanding of it. If after doing so you still believe you saw something that cannot be explained to your satisfaction, then I believe you would have a good reason for saying you saw something alien. Do I think that your experience constitutes material and verifiable scientific evidence? No. However that doesn't mean I would offhandedly reject it either, which seems to be where we part ways.

That's an awful lot of words just to repeat the Ufologists' Creed, that anything which isn't identified as some particular thing can reasonably be assumed to be an alien craft. Or in the short form, "UFOs = alien craft". But we all know, even the "ufologists" in the crowd, that it's a dishonest way to try to support a preconceived belief in aliens, perpetuate a hoax, and maybe try to pedal a few books... and of course it's nonsense.