UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

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.

Your the first one to employ an Argument From Authority when it supports your belief in aliens ("but he was a captain in the USAF, he couldn't possibly be mistaken!"). But when the nice lady with a degree in mathematics comments upon your mis-use of statistics, you choose to stamp your little foot and cry foul.

Is this not something of a double standard, fol?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

First, you're going to need to show that an Unidentified Flying Object appearing on radar (or FLIR) is an OMG Alien Space Ship.

Now, answer the question since you hate how you dodge them so much.

Are you saying that all of those credible witnesses were wrong about witnessing witches?

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

LOL!

Did you not see Post #15998? The Floogoscope has found the same amount of evidence for witches as all the other radars in the world have found for Alien Space Ships.

Imagine if Pope Innocent VIII had had access to a Floogoscope? He would have had a field day.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Tell you what, find an example where it was concluded that aliens have been tracked on radar and pursued by military jets, and we'll start to take your "some UFOs are alien craft" claim seriously. Or do different standards apply to the pseudoscience of "ufology" than to objective reality?

 

[ufology]

First, you're going to need to show that an Unidentified Flying Object appearing on radar (or FLIR) is an OMG Alien Space Ship.

Now, answer the question since you hate how you dodge them so much.

Are you saying that all of those credible witnesses were wrong about witnessing witches?

You presume incorrectly, all you need to do is find me a case where someone has merely reported that they saw a witch flying by and that their sighting corresponded to an unidentified radar target or military jets were sent to investigate. Can you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You presume incorrectly, all you need to do is find me a case where someone has merely reported that they saw a witch flying by and that their sighting corresponded to an unidentified radar target or military jets were sent to investigate. Can you?

What grade are you in? Do you think radar existed back in colonial America days?

Now, answer the question because you seem to hate that you dodge questions so much.

Are you saying that all of those credible witnesses were wrong about witnessing witches?

 

[GeeMack]

So again you avoid the questions and imply that I don't understand the answers that other people have given.

There is not much evidence to suggest you do, and very much evidence to suggest you don't. Would you agree we should go where the evidence leads us?

The fact is that I understand perfectly [...]

That's not a fact within objectively demonstrated reality.

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

You don't really want us to point out all the "ufologists'" dodging of questions and self-serving out of context answers, do you? Because you might be expected to start by honestly answering the several direct, simple questions you've been asked over just the past few pages.

[...] or engage in mockery, flames and ridicule.

Your claim that some UFOs are alien craft has been so poorly supported that at this point it has more than earned all the mockery and ridicule it receives. These helpful skeptics have been more than patient and more than cooperative, and still all we seem to receive from "ufologists" is, how was that phrased?... "dodg[ing] questions, provid[ing] self-serving out of context answers".

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?

Sincerely try this: Of all the things that have been seen and initially not identified, but were eventually identified as some particular thing, how many turned out to be alien craft? You may provide your answer in numbers or percentages. Or do you feel that an honest, objective, quantitative assessment of reality is outside the bounds of the pseudoscience of "ufology"?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

I believe that this is a case of GIGO. We went over this early on in the thread with the OP. When you have data that is subjective, the results are going to be subjective. I addressed this on pages 13-14 in SUNlite 3-4:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf

 

[ufology]

What grade are you in? Do you think radar existed back in colonial America days?

Now, answer the question because you seem to hate that you dodge questions so much.

Are you saying that all of those credible witnesses were wrong about witnessing witches?

OK so you can't provide any examples in your analogy equal to modern UFO sightings, which means there is no valid corelation in your argument between the two topics. Try something else.

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK so you can't provide any examples in your analogy equal to modern UFO sightings, which means there is no valid corelation in your argument between the two topics. Try something else.

When I asked when you would be able to answer honestly, why didn't you just say never?

Witches have been proven in a courts of law with upstanding, credible witnesses and also by members of the Church. Are you saying that all those witnesses were wrong?

Answer the question, folo.

 

[ufology]

When I asked when you would be able to answer honestly, why didn't you just say never?

Witches have been proven in a courts of law with upstanding, credible witnesses and also by members of the Church. Are you saying that all those witnesses were wrong?

Answer the question, folo.

What I'm saying is that none of them tracked UFOs on radar or chased them in jets. If you want to talk about witches, go to the witches thread ... if there is one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What I'm saying is that none of them tracked UFOs on radar or chased them in jets. If you want to talk about witches, go to the witches thread ... if there is one.

We're talking about evidence. This is the evidence thread even though you have none.

Can you show me a UFO that was tracked on radar or chased in jets that wasn't a witch?

 

[tsig]

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.

We know humans can misperceive and radar can give wrong results therefore it's more logical to conclude that that's what happened than the whole of physics is wrong.

 

[ufology]

We're talking about evidence. This is the evidence thread even though you have none.

Can you show me a UFO that was tracked on radar or chased in jets that wasn't a witch?

So now you are implying that witches explain UFOs? That's interesting. Shall I add that to our list of hypotheses? The FWH ( Flying Witch Hypothesis )? I'm not sure how many takers you'll get on that one but you can give it a try. If the experiences I've had in some of the new age and religious chat rooms are any indication, you can probably sell it to someone. After all there are believers in the Transports From Hell hypothesis so you'll probably get some takers.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So now you are implying that witches explain UFOs? That's interesting. Shall I add that to our list of hypotheses? The FWH ( Flying Witch Hypothesis )? I'm not sure how many takers you'll get on that one but you can give it a try. If the experiences I've had in some of the new age and religious chat rooms are any indication, you can probably sell it to someone. After all there are believers in the Transports From Hell hypothesis so you'll probably get some takers.

You're right. It was silly. I shouldn't have been fool enough to think I could identify something that, by definition, is unidentified.

So show me a radar hit that turned out to be an Alien Space Ship instead.

 

[GeeMack]

So now you are implying that witches explain UFOs? That's interesting. Shall I add that to our list of hypotheses? The FWH ( Flying Witch Hypothesis )? I'm not sure how many takers you'll get on that one but you can give it a try. If the experiences I've had in some of the new age and religious chat rooms are any indication, you can probably sell it to someone. After all there are believers in the Transports From Hell hypothesis so you'll probably get some takers.

There are believers in the claim that some UFOs are alien craft, too, even though there is exactly as much evidence supporting that claim as there is supporting the notion that UFOs might be witches or gods or even transports from Hell. I'm sure you'll agree it requires a wholly irrational assessment to accept any of those conjectures as being closer to reality than any other.

So show me a radar hit that turned out to be an Alien Space Ship instead.

I'd venture a guess that you'll not receive a direct honest reply to that because from what we've seen here, an honest, objective, quantitative assessment of reality is outside the bounds of the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[ufology]

We know humans can misperceive and radar can give wrong results therefore it's more logical to conclude that that's what happened than the whole of physics is wrong.

Sure radar can pick up false targets, and pilots can misperceive. But that doesn't mean they always do, even when the situation is extraordinary. In the 1952 DC sightings you had a combination of radar, ground visual and air visual, where an F-94 pilot was vectored to a radar target, saw an object, closed on it, only to watch it suddenly depart at "phenomenal speed" far beyond the capability of his aircraft to intercept. During this sighting his aircraft was also surrounded and paced by other objects described as glowing balls of light. I've found no reason to believe that the event did not happen, and given the corroborative factors, I don't believe mere misperception explains it. I also don't see how any laws of physics are broken by this incident ... or for that matter how the existence of UFOs in general defy the laws of physics. Just because we haven't figured out how to replicate them or what they can do doesn't mean it can't be done within a scientifically valid framework. No supernatural leap of faith is required.

Lastly, our laws of physics don't explain everything and scientific instruments are also fallible. Science itself isn't perfect and there have been plenty of scientific errors and frauds to contend with. So it isn't wise to place science on so high a pedestal that it is deemed to be perfect. It's not. We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure radar can pick up false targets, and pilots can misperceive. But that doesn't mean they always do, even when the situation is extraordinary.

Then how about all the witnesses to witches? Highly regarded people in their communities witnessed witches. Witches were proven in courts of law where the rules of law and dicsover would make it even more likely that they were really witches.

Are you saying those things could be mistaken? All of them? Yes or no.

Answer the question, folo.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure [* Rationalizing the complete lack of evidence to support the claim snipped. *]

Of all the things that have been seen and were initially unidentified, but which were eventually identified as some particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? Simple question. The answer should be in numbers or, "I don't know." Ignorance of the question, although understandable, certainly doesn't advance the discussion. Is it just a little too scary to let reality encroach on the "ufology" fantasy?

 

[23_Tauri]

So now you are implying that witches explain UFOs? That's interesting. Shall I add that to our list of hypotheses? The FWH ( Flying Witch Hypothesis )? I'm not sure how many takers you'll get on that one but you can give it a try.

What some of us have been implying, fug, is not that witches (with or without broomsticks) explain UFOs, but that - based on the evidence - the likelihood that witches explain UFOs is the same as, or more likely than, it being aliens (with or without saucers) that explain UFOs.

Have you only just twigged this?

If the experiences I've had in some of the new age and religious chat rooms are any indication, you can probably sell it to someone. After all there are believers in the Transports From Hell Aliens From Outer Space hypothesis so you'll probably get some takers.

FTFY