UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm in, with 2 conditions.

1 - We start a UFO thread in Community or humor, and everyone agrees to come along, especially the artists among us.
2 - Paul2 is in charge of the "single question."

Shall we take a vote?

Hrmmp, shlargle . . . . Wha? I was napping so peacefully.

I'm considering this for the question: "Mr. Ufo, I either tell the truth all the time or I lie all the time about UFOs/Aliens. What's the one question you should ask me in order to find out if there are really UFOs/Aliens or not?"

 

[23_Tauri]

No, I vote we stay here. If that's ok.

 

[Paul2]

Either way is good for me, I'm not voting.

 

[ufology]

You worked that out all on your own?


I have a degree in Mathematics, you have nothing to teach me on the subject.

It has been explained to you - many times, patiently and at length - why the wiki articles you keep referencing are completely irrelevant to the application of the principle of the null hypothesis to the issue of whether any UFOs are alien spacecraft.


No-one has done that, so there are zero names on that list.

An honest look at who here seems to be blinded by their emotional investment in an unsupportable belief produces only one username to go on the list, and it starts with a 'u'.

So your best response is a not so subtle insult combined with a denial of the facts. Nothing has been "explained" to me as you contend ... only denied as valid. So if your math degree doesn't place you above answering questions from lowly uninformed emotionally blinded people like me, perhaps you could explain why the following quote from the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesisis is not true and why it is not applicable to the statistical data from the USAF study we've been talking about, particularly the UFOs classed as "unknown", and how the unknown objects in these reports differ in any appreciable way from the word "alien" ( independent definitions also included and compared below for your convenience. )

Quote ( WIkipedia ):

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very unlikely, defined as belonging to a set of data that only rarely will be observed (usually in less than either 5% of the time or 1% of the time), the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false."

Quote: ( BMI Study )

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.

Definitions of Alien and Unknown compared in the context of UFO studies:

Alien ( adjective ):

unusual, out of the ordinary, striking, interesting, bizarre, mysterious, glamorous, colorful, outlandish, strange, different, exceptional

Synonym: "unknown, unfamiliar, exotic, extraterrestrial ... ")

Source: Encarta World English Dictionary

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unknown ( adjective )

unidentified, indefinite, mysterious, strange, unfamiliar, unheard of, nameless, anonymous, new, unspecified, undetermined

Synonym: "alien, unfamiliar, strange, mystery ... ")

Source: Encarta World English Dictionary

And again, within the context of the studies done, the word alien is synonymous with the word unknown on more than one level and includes the extraterrestrial possibility , a possibility considered in the early USAF studies and by many other researchers who came later. Remember I've made no claim that alien necessitates ET in any of my posts.

 

[Robrob]

Why is it seem the greater the nut, the more they dwell on semantics?

 

[ufology]

Does a good reason to believe depend upon who is doing the believing (that is, whether it's a first-hand experience or a second-hand report of the first-hand experience)? My answer is no. See below.

If the experience is valid enough to properly convince the first-hand experiencer, the second-hand hearer of the report should also accept it, otherwise we have a real problem: two different people, with evidence that is valid for them both, come to a different conclusion.

This type of conclusion about reality can NOT depend on the person doing the concluding. That's nearly the definition of reality - what remains when you take away individual influence, bias, perspective, etc. - what is common to everyone, regardless of the individual.

Paul,

All firsthand experiences are "valid" and they result in "proper" conclusions for a vast number of everyday experiences. We tend to take those experiences for granted and don't expect that we'll have to prove them to anyone else, but when an extraordinary event happens, then people expect more. In such cases, even though the experience itself is still as valid as any other, the interpretation of the experience can vary depending on the details, and this is where we get into what people think is "proper". But the skeptics here wouldn't even get that far because without material scientific evidence, they simply dismiss the experience as valid in the first place.

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

All firsthand experiences are "valid"

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but go back to my post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7906821#post7906821
and see that I meant "valid" in the sense of properly convincing. Surely all firsthand experiences are not valid (hallucinations, optical illusions, etc.).

Unless you're saying that the raw experience of an optical illusion, say, is valid in the sense that the (mis)perception is what the experiencer perceived, in which case I agree, but the point is made trivial and irrelevant for the larger point I was making and which you ignored:

what the experiencer concludes can only be proper if a second-hand party would legitimately conclude the same thing.

The rest of your post also ignores this aspect.

But the skeptics here wouldn't even get that far because without material scientific evidence, they simply dismiss the experience as valid in the first place.

Not sure what you mean by "dismissing an experience as valid." Do you mean dismissing an experience as NOT valid?

 

[ufology]

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but go back to my post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7906821#post7906821
and see that I meant "valid" in the sense of properly convincing. Surely all firsthand experiences are not valid (hallucinations, optical illusions, etc.).

Unless you're saying that the raw experience of an optical illusion, say, is valid in the sense that the (mis)perception is what the experiencer perceived, in which case I agree, but the point is made trivial and irrelevant for the larger point I was making and which you ignored:

what the experiencer concludes can only be proper if a second-hand party would legitimately conclude the same thing.

The rest of your post also ignores this aspect.

Not sure what you mean by "dismissing an experience as valid." Do you mean dismissing an experience as NOT valid?

Paul,

In the context of your clarification, what you say makes sense ( "what the experiencer concludes can only be proper if a second-hand party would legitimately conclude the same thing" ). However simply making sense isn't enough because it assumes that if the second-hand party were exposed to the same stimulus, they would have the same experience. However, we all experience things differently, and in some cases widely differently based on cultural, religious, and other backgrounds, and that can lead us to draw equally wide conclusions.

One example I run into in ufology is the "Transports from Hell" belief, where some religious types believe UFOs are some kind of supernatural transportation platform piloted by demons from Hell. So in the event that one of these people were standing next to an atheist when they both see a UFO, each will have two completely different "experiences". To minimize this problem I look at the objective information like location, configuration, size, distance, movement ... etc. and if after considering those factors, and assuming there is good reason to believe something was actually seen as described, if what was seen doesn't correspond to any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon, and furthermore cannot be explained even hypothetically using current technology, then I class that object or phenomenon as alien.

 

[Stray Cat]

So your best response is a not so subtle insult combined with a denial of the facts. Nothing has been "explained" to me as you contend ... only denied as valid. So if your math degree doesn't place you above answering questions from lowly uninformed emotionally blinded people like me, perhaps you could explain why the following quote from the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesisis is not true and why it is not applicable to the statistical data from the USAF study we've been talking about, particularly the UFOs classed as "unknown", and how the unknown objects in these reports differ in any appreciable way from the word "alien" ( independent definitions also included and compared below for your convenience. )

Quote ( WIkipedia ):

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very unlikely, defined as belonging to a set of data that only rarely will be observed (usually in less than either 5% of the time or 1% of the time), the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false."

Quote: ( BMI Study )

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.

Definitions of Alien and Unknown compared in the context of UFO studies:

Alien ( adjective ):

unusual, out of the ordinary, striking, interesting, bizarre, mysterious, glamorous, colorful, outlandish, strange, different, exceptional

Synonym: "unknown, unfamiliar, exotic, extraterrestrial ... ")

Source: Encarta World English Dictionary

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unknown ( adjective )

unidentified, indefinite, mysterious, strange, unfamiliar, unheard of, nameless, anonymous, new, unspecified, undetermined

Synonym: "alien, unfamiliar, strange, mystery ... ")

Source: Encarta World English Dictionary

And again, within the context of the studies done, the word alien is synonymous with the word unknown on more than one level and includes the extraterrestrial possibility , a possibility considered in the early USAF studies and by many other researchers who came later. Remember I've made no claim that alien necessitates ET in any of my posts.

I'll have another go.

The BMI Blue Book special report No.14 concluded that is was:

"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."

Hardly "alien" at all, either in the common definition of the word or your own twisted one.

And it hardly describes "space ship" either as in 1955, space ships were still beyond our present day knowledge as it wouldn't be for another 2 years until Sputnik was launched.

Therefore we can quite safely say that the statistical significance is Zero.
Not one single example of an alien craft (either alien as in mysterious to us, or not of this world) has been shown to exist. Therefore there is no data to compare for statistical significance. The statistical probability of the BMI showing aliens (either in crafts or not) stands at zero, ziltch, nought, nadda, nothing, nill, nowt. All this according to their own conclusion.

Therefore you have the much easier task instead of convoluting definitions and misrepresenting data to weave an elaborate whirlpool in which to sit your aliens in flying saucers... You simply have to show that one single UFO has been an alien craft. This will falsify the null hypothesis. No complex maths required beyond the ability to count up to one.

 

[Stray Cat]

Paul,

All firsthand experiences are "valid" and they result in "proper" conclusions for a vast number of everyday experiences. We tend to take those experiences for granted and don't expect that we'll have to prove them to anyone else, but when an extraordinary event happens, then people expect more.

As usual you are getting this all downside up.
What has been shown constantly to happen in UFO cases (not only in UFO cases actually) is that an "extraordinary event" did not take place, but the viewers perception became faulty resulting in allowing them to believe they had experienced an extraordinary event.

Thousands of times you can look up to the sky and see a plane, Chinese lantern, blimp or other airborne object passing overhead. Then sometimes due to the conditions or ones own state of mind your perception can be faulty and you think you see a flying saucer. This one time out of the thousands (or millions) of times you've looked at the sky seems to correlate quite well with the amount of times perception can be fooled when looking at other things on the ground that can fool our perceptions.

 

[ufology]

As usual you are getting this all downside up.
What has been shown constantly to happen in UFO cases (not only in UFO cases actually) is that an "extraordinary event" did not take place, but the viewers perception became faulty resulting in allowing them to believe they had experienced an extraordinary event.

Thousands of times you can look up to the sky and see a plane, Chinese lantern, blimp or other airborne object passing overhead. Then sometimes due to the conditions or ones own state of mind your perception can be faulty and you think you see a flying saucer. This one time out of the thousands (or millions) of times you've looked at the sky seems to correlate quite well with the amount of times perception can be fooled when looking at other things on the ground that can fool our perceptions.

Sure, people can make mistakes and have perceptual or interpretive issues. The USAF study took that into account during investigations and from that we know that most of the reports they investigated turned out to be just like you say, but not all of them. So I've got nothing "upside down" whatever that comment was supposed to mean.

 

[Pixel42]

Nothing has been "explained" to me as you contend ... only denied as valid.

I haven't read every single post on the thread (I pop in every now and then to see if any progress has been made in getting you to understand the concept of the null hypothesis and shake my head sadly when it immediately becomes clear it hasn't) but as far as I'm aware no-one has denied that the information in the wiki articles you keep posting is valid. They've only pointed out that it's irrelevant and/or inapplicable. You have been given the explanations why (and the links to articles which are relevant to back them up) many times already, I see no point in doing so again.

The interesting question that was posed, and which led me to enter the conversation to offer a possible answer, was why you have so much difficulty assimilating this information - which is so clear and obvious to everyone else - even though you clearly have the intellectual capacity to do so.

 

[ufology]

I'll have another go.

The BMI Blue Book special report No.14 concluded that is was:

"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."

Hardly "alien" at all, either in the common definition of the word or your own twisted one.

And it hardly describes "space ship" either as in 1955, space ships were still beyond our present day knowledge as it wouldn't be for another 2 years until Sputnik was launched.

Therefore we can quite safely say that the statistical significance is Zero.
Not one single example of an alien craft (either alien as in mysterious to us, or not of this world) has been shown to exist. Therefore there is no data to compare for statistical significance. The statistical probability of the BMI showing aliens (either in crafts or not) stands at zero, ziltch, nought, nadda, nothing, nill, nowt. All this according to their own conclusion.

Therefore you have the much easier task instead of convoluting definitions and misrepresenting data to weave an elaborate whirlpool in which to sit your aliens in flying saucers... You simply have to show that one single UFO has been an alien craft. This will falsify the null hypothesis. No complex maths required beyond the ability to count up to one.

The quote you mention was an opinion expressed in the study's summary ... not part of the actual results. Besides ... "rang of present day knowledge" doesn't mean the same as present day accomplishments or even possible accomplishments. Hypothetical accomplishments and projects on the drawing board for years in the future could be considered as within the "range of present day knowledge". So basically that opinion is worthless as any evaluation. The numbers however are far more objective. To any objective person, the actual results warrant a completely different opinion.

Here again is a summary of the results:

• About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified;
• about 9% fell into insufficient information.
• About 22% were deemed "unknown."
• Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases.
• A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.

In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant 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.

 

[ufology]

I haven't read every single post on the thread (I pop in every now and then to see if any progress has been made in getting you to understand the concept of the null hypothesis and shake my head sadly when it immediately becomes clear it hasn't) but as far as I'm aware no-one has denied that the information in the wiki articles you keep posting is valid. They've only pointed out that it's irrelevant and/or inapplicable. You have been given the explanations why (and the links to articles which are relevant to back them up) many times already, I see no point in doing so again.

The interesting question that was posed, and which led me to enter the conversation to offer a possible answer, was why you have so much difficulty assimilating this information - which is so clear and obvious to everyone else - even though you clearly have the intellectual capacity to do so.

Perhaps you could explain how the statistical principles by which the null hypothesis operates according to the independent articles I quoted could be irrelevant or innaplicable to the example I gave, which was a statistical study of UFOs carried out by an impartial study group?

Maybe also explain how this example and my responses constitute an example of blind emotional belief on my part?

Perhaps when you contemplate these questions you will find that I am neither blinded nor challenged when it comes to understanding the concepts which have been presented here. Rather there is a refusal on the part of some skeptics to acknowledge the points that have been put forward, resorting instead to offhanded dismissals, proclamations, mockery and ridicule. There are countless examples on this thread alone. You might also want to review my comments on Astrophotographer's latest release of SUNlite. I'm far from closed minded to constructive skepticism. I really think you have the wrong impression of me.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sure, people can make mistakes and have perceptual or interpretive issues. The USAF study took that into account during investigations and from that we know that most of the reports they investigated turned out to be just like you say, but not all of them. So I've got nothing "upside down" whatever that comment was supposed to mean.

Yes you have, you are making an unfounded and unevidenced presumption that the one's that remained unexplained were somehow different.

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps you could explain how the statistical principles by which the null hypothesis operates according to the independent articles I quoted could be irrelevant or innaplicable to the example I gave, which was a statistical study of UFOs carried out by an impartial study group?

I have nothing to add to the explanation you have already been given multiple times.

You cannot bring evidence for alien spacecraft into existence by playing silly games with words and their definitions.

 

[Akhenaten]

Remember I've made no claim that alien necessitates ET in any of my posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why is it seem the greater the nut, the more they dwell on semantics?

 

[Jocce]

The quote you mention was an opinion expressed in the study's summary ... not part of the actual results. Besides ... "rang of present day knowledge" doesn't mean the same as present day accomplishments or even possible accomplishments. Hypothetical accomplishments and projects on the drawing board for years in the future could be considered as within the "range of present day knowledge". So basically that opinion is worthless as any evaluation. The numbers however are far more objective. To any objective person, the actual results warrant a completely different opinion.

Here again is a summary of the results:

• About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified;
• about 9% fell into insufficient information.
• About 22% were deemed "unknown."
• Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases.
• A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.

In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant 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.

Too bad you didn't bother looking at the links I gave you a couple of days ago. You're starting to look rather foolish posting this.

 

[Stray Cat]

The quote you mention was an opinion expressed in the study's summary ... not part of the actual results.

Yes, a conclusion based upon the result of the study.
That you misrepresent those results is not really my problem.

Besides ... "rang of present day knowledge" doesn't mean the same as present day accomplishments or even possible accomplishments.

So tell me at what stage did our (human) knowledge of space travel stand in 1955?

Hypothetical accomplishments and projects on the drawing board for years in the future could be considered as within the "range of present day knowledge".

Hypothetical things are not knowledge.

So basically that opinion is worthless as any evaluation.

Wishful thinking.

The numbers however are far more objective. To any objective person, the actual results warrant a completely different opinion.

Here again is a summary of the results:

• About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified;
• about 9% fell into insufficient information.
• About 22% were deemed "unknown."
• Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases.
• A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.

In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically signficant 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.

However, as the unknowns remain unknown, it has not been shown that if enough information to identify them had been available that they wouldn't have fitted into any of the other categories (bearing in mind the only reason something can not be identified is that there isn't enough information with which to identify it regardless of your shinanigans). And as they can not be compared to any known alien flying saucers, there is no valid statistical significance in trying to do that.

Further, 'One in a billion' events happen all the time. To place misguided significance on those things and to not understand the probability of them is to severely underestimate the number of 'things' there are.