UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

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.

I had hoped you would be more constructive, but again, instead of backing up your initial statements with answers to relevant questions, you've gone back over to offhanded dismissals and aloof comments. Too bad, there seemed to be so much potential there.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

All firsthand experiences are "valid" and they result in "proper" conclusions for a vast number of everyday experiences.

"Fology",

"No", "they" are "not". "Quite" a "few" "firsthand experiences" are "nothing more" than" self-delusion".

"Especially" the "ones" in "scare quotes".

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.

So far, so good.

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".

You can't make this assumption.

The interpretation of the experience can vary depending on the quality of the evidence provided, not the amount of detail.

What (reasonable) people think is "proper" is a conclusion that matches the evidence. If you don't have any evidence then you can't form any conclusion at all, let alone a proper one. Unless you're a ufailogist or a bigfeeter.

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.

". . . dismiss the experience as valid"???

Anyway, if you're saying that skeptics don't get as far as reaching a conclusion based on insufficient evidence then yes, you're correct.

There's a "first".

 

[Akhenaten]

Sure, people can make mistakes and have perceptual or interpretive issues.

Or they can just make stuff up out of whole cloth. Or talking rabbits can tell them tall stories. Or MIB can embark on disinformation campaigns for nefarious purposes. Or . . .

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.

Some of them actually turned up alien flying saucers, did they?

So I've got nothing "upside down" whatever that comment was supposed to mean.

It means that you start with your foregone conclusion and work backwards towards a matching hypothesis.

 

[ufology]

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 ...

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case. The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study. For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have. Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots ... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

 

[Akhenaten]

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".

No both of them have exactly the same experience, but may come up with completely different interpretations. No scare quotes required.

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.

You cannot know this, unless you're a Mentat or something.

All you're actually doing is going through the motions of carrying out all the "steps between" receiving a report and jumping to your favourite conclusion.

 

[Akhenaten]

I had hoped you would be more constructive, but again, instead of backing up your initial statements with answers to relevant questions, you've gone back over to offhanded dismissals and aloof comments. Too bad, there seemed to be so much potential there.

Constructive ≠ agrees with my fantasy world of flying saucers and talking rabbits.

Deal with it.

 

[23_Tauri]

I had hoped you would be more constructive, but again, instead of backing up your initial statements with answers to relevant questions, you've gone back over to offhanded dismissals and aloof comments. Too bad, there seemed to be so much potential there.

Floog, what part of there are no aliens in your data set do you not understand?

Zero aliens means statistical significance is irrelevant.

I and everyone else on this thread were well aware that the word 'alien' is listed as a synonym of 'unknown' in the thesaurus. Just because one word is a synonym for another and has been listed as such , it does not follow that it is appropriate to substitute your word for the synonym. It might be, but usually it isn't.

Unlike Pixel42, I may have only scant knowledge of statistics, having only studied the subject many years ago at college as part of my Psychology 'A' Level, but there's little you can teach me about using a thesaurus, as I have thumbed through Peter Mark Roget's greatest invention almost every day for the past thirty years. It's my favourite book.

 

[Akhenaten]

<known snippage>

When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

How many alien spaceships did that add up to?

Where are they now?

Pics?

 

[Jocce]

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case. The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study. For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have. Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots ... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

The study showed clearly that no matter "good" or "bad" reports, the portion of unidentitifed objects remained the same. So it doesn't seem to matter how much information we think we have.

 

[Pixel42]

I had hoped you would be more constructive, but again, instead of backing up your initial statements with answers to relevant questions, you've gone back over to offhanded dismissals and aloof comments.

The answers to your questions have been given many times, if you didn't listen to them or try to understand them when others gave them why would you do so when I do?

"You cannot bring evidence for alien spacecraft into existence by playing silly games with words and their definitions" is neither an offhand dismissal or an aloof comment, it is a simple statement of fact.

Either evidence of alien spacecraft exists or it doesn't. If it existed then at least one sighting initially classed as a UFO would now be an IFO, having been positively identified as an alien spacecraft, and the null hypothesis would have been disproved. No amount of UFO sightings which remain unidentified will ever equal positive evidence of alien spacecraft. You can deny that reality as much as like, it will remain reality.

 

[Akhenaten]

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case. The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study.

Is this supposed to say something other than that UFOs which can't be identified are classified as unidentified?

How impressive.

For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have.

Even if you've managed to eliminate natural phenomena (which you haven't) you can't jump straight to "OMG . . .aliens!"

Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots ... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

The chances of them being alien spaceships are far closer to zero.

 

[23_Tauri]

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".

Is anyone else's Irony Meter going way off the scale?

To minimize this problem I look at the objective information like location, configuration, size, distance, movement ... etc.

Problem is, this type of information is rarely accurately recorded in the case of UFO sightings. It's inferred by the observer.

and if after considering those factors, and assuming there is good reason to believe something was actually seen as described,

which in most cases there isn't....

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.

Which could include witches or "Transports from Hell" (sic), right?

Problem is, when the information about the object (or light source, or hallucination, whatever) is incorrectly recorded, or insufficiently recorded, then you cannot make the assumption that it isn't a natural or man-made phenomenon. You don't even know what all your unknown unknowns are, for starters, and you never will.

 

[Stray Cat]

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case.

Of course the other possibility is that I have reviewed the study in a lot more depth than you ever have and I understand it much better. You really should take note of what Jocce is saying to you.

The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study. For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have.

This an incorrect assumption. If there is information missing that would lead to an identification (be it a flying saucer or a reflection of a instrument panel light), there is no way of knowing what it might have been. Statistics will not help you in these cases because statistically speaking the chances of it being an alien flying saucer is zero.

Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots

Again I ask which part of the pilots extensive training makes them experts in not being able to identify objects?

... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

Almost zero?
Is that a statistically accurate measurement or one you just pulled from your hat?

Come back when you get it to exactly zero.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So this thread has yet to produce evidence that any UFO was any kind of alien vessel, and the research that is out there suggests they are unknown, but can in no way, mean, or form be read as suggesting any reason to believe they are alien.

Glad we have reached a conclusion. Well done. Perhaps folo can either produce research that says what he claims, or stop making excuses about not needing evidence when, amazingly, logic dictates that is exactly what ufology as a field needs, and no amount of "studying" stories will change it.

 

[Resume]

So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

That zero is a number pulled from somewhere south.

Sack is still empty I see.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case. The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study. For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have. Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots ... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

Then why do you continue to scurry away from answering the question about competent witnesses to witches? You dishonestly want to redefine UFOs to equal OMGAliens but you cowardly ignore and dismiss better evidence for witches than for UFOs equal OMG Aliens. Witches have been proven in courts of law with citizens of the highest credibility giving testimony. Are you saying that all of those witnesses could have been wrong?

When do you think you'll be able to honestly address that issue?

 

[GeeMack]

You clearly didn't review the study because if you had you would realize that what you are saying isn't the case. The unknowns were from cases where there was sufficient information to exclude them from any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study.

Nobody knows the extent of man made or natural phenomena outside the scope of "any known manmade or natural phenomenon using the criteria mentioned in the study". So the actual results do not objectively lead to the faith-based, non-objective conclusion you've arrived at.

But let's make this simple... Yes or no, were any of the unknowns later identified as alien craft?

For example a large metallic object that outruns a jet is never going to be explained as some natural phenomena ( e.g. birds or swamp gas ) no matter how much information you have.

There are a handful of obvious possible mundane explanations for why someone might believe they see such a thing, or why someone might claim to have seen such a thing even if they don't believe it. Several have been discussed in this thread already. You have even admitted that some of those things could not be eliminated as possible explanations for your alleged sighting. The fact that you've been steadfastly resistant to discussing the possibility of it being a simple hoax, made up from scratch, actually lends credence to that being a reasonable possibility. The potential motivation to sell books through your website also objective support for that possibility. And much other evidence has been provided in this thread.

Some of these cases involved multiple witnesses together with competent trained people like pilots ... and in a few cases also included radar. So the chances of them being a hoax or some misperception is almost zero.

And just what would you calculate the chances of them being alien craft, quantitatively and objectively calculated based on all the other things seen, initially unidentified, and later identified to be some particular thing? Is there something especially scary about answering that simple question honestly? Or is honesty something... uh... alien to the pseudoscience of "ufology"?

 

[ufology]

The answers to your questions have been given many times, if you didn't listen to them or try to understand them when others gave them why would you do so when I do?

So again you avoid the questions and imply that I don't understand the answers that other people have given. The fact is that I understand perfectly when I see people dodge questions, provide self-serving out of context answers, or engage in mockery, flames and ridicule. So why would I listen to you instead? Perhaps I had hoped for better. I suspect you are capable so why not give it a sincere try?

 

[RoboTimbo]

...when I see people dodge questions, provide self-serving out of context answers...

LOL.

 

[ufology]

Then why do you continue to scurry away from answering the question about competent witnesses to witches? You dishonestly want to redefine UFOs to equal OMGAliens but you cowardly ignore and dismiss better evidence for witches than for UFOs equal OMG Aliens. Witches have been proven in courts of law with citizens of the highest credibility giving testimony. Are you saying that all of those witnesses could have been wrong?

When do you think you'll be able to honestly address that issue?

Tell you what Robo, find me an example where witches have been tracked on radar and pursued by military jets and I'll start to take your witch analogy seriously.