UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ). Other examples that use the word "machine" in this context are "machine language" ( base computer instructions ) and "machine errors" ( hardware errors, one of the most common types being error in reading or accessing memory or media. )

You forgot upscope radar blips on RB-47s and various radar blips in Washington 1952. Are you now saying these may have been incorrect or at least easy to misinterpret?

 

[23_Tauri]

You forgot upscope radar blips on RB-47s and various radar blips in Washington 1952. Are you now saying these may have been incorrect or at least easy to misinterpret?

Anyone want to put money on betting that fol's wholly inadquate answer to this will be that the crew of RB-47 and Washington were trained pilots so they knew when the machines couldn't be malfunctioning?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7920445#post7920445

Simply because something unfamiliar comes into the picture doesn't mean we automatically screw up every time, especially if we are trained not to screw up and are expecting it to happen, as in the case of Air Force pilots who are scrambled after unidentified radar targets.

As it is, uf, do you think scientists don't know that machines are capable of error on occasion? You think they don't take this into account? Why else would scientists have fired neuterinos through the Alps over 14,000 times, instead of just the once? When scientists design experiments they build into their design the probability of a result being due to chance. This 'chance' includes machine error. This is why researchers use levels of statistical significance, which measures the likelihood that a result could not have happened by chance.

If you understood statistics, instead of just parroting wikipedia in an attempt to appear like you do, then you'd know this.

 

[Stray Cat]

Anyone want to put money on betting that fol's wholly inadquate answer to this will be that the crew of RB-47 and Washington were trained pilots so they knew when the machines couldn't be malfunctioning?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7920445#post7920445

The problem being that there is no need to suppose the equipment was malfunctioning. It could have been working perfectly and still given the returns it did without alien flying saucers being the cause.

Also as phrases like "I'd never seen anything like it" were used in both stories, you'd have to wonder (again) at how "trained" these people were. I mean of course trained in being able to spot things they've never seen and couldn't identify... heck anyone can do that with no training what-so-ever.

 

[John Albert]

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ). Other examples that use the word "machine" in this context are "machine language" ( base computer instructions )

You mean those instruments whose sensitivity is far more acute than any human senses, capable of acquiring perspectives unattainable by humans and/or mapping wavelengths of energy far outside the spectra of human detection?

You're talking about the kinds of devices whose reliability and failure rate are far better than any person's senses and memory?

You mean equipment that, in the infrequent events that they do fail, generally tend to fail in predictable ways that are often possible to correct, troubleshoot, and repair?

You're talking about the kinds of observational tools that can be adjusted to identify patterns of data under a variety of conditions and circumstances far beyond what our unaided senses can extrapolate?

You mean apparatus that allow unlimited numbers of human beings to share the exact same view of objective data, unlike human senses which are only mapped to a single observer's own brain; devices that obviate the need to rely on failure-prone human memory, interpretation, language, and anecdotes in order to relate empirical information from one individual to another?

You're talking about machine memory, that stores information mechanically and objectively without any personal biases of ideology, emotion, cognition or sophistry; information storage devices that, unlike human memory, have an entirely detectable and identifiable failure rate and can perform trillions of read/write cycles without error?


"Machine generated data" is simply a dishonest phrase intended to degrade confidence in machine-collected data that are in fact many orders of magnitude more reliable and accurate than human-collected data of the same type.

Do you need an example to understand how much more accurate machine-collected data is from human-collected data?

Here are two maps of the Virginia coastline:

One is hand-drawn by humans, entirely on the basis of personal observation, anecdotes and memory. The other is what you would characterize as "machine generated data" (a.k.a. a "satellite photograph").

(Note the word "Norumbega" in the hand-drawn atlas. "Norumbega" was an alleged Native American city, rumored to possess an abundance of resources and great riches, but was determined by later expeditions to be totally nonexistent.)

Which of these two maps is more accurate? Which contains more objective information? Which is more reliable?

...and "machine errors" ( hardware errors, one of the most common types being error in reading or accessing memory or media. )

You mean those hardware errors that occur so infrequently that a common home desktop computer system is capable of thousands of hours of reliable service, free of hardware errors, even though its processor executes several billions of operations every second, accessing memory as frequently as several hundred million times per second, with error rates as low as one bit error per century per gigabyte of RAM?

I can hardly believe you're actually trying to float such a dishonest and obtuse argument.

 

[ufology]

Obviously not, but the more novel the experience is to us and the less opportunity we have to verify our perceptions against objective evidence the more likely we are to draw the wrong conclusion. That's why someone who is unfamiliar with a magic act (such as the cold reading of a so called psychic) is more likely to be taken in by it than someone who has researched such things.

You have no good reason to assume that the object you saw the first time and the one you saw later were one and the same object. When you first told your story the most likely explanation seemed to me to be that your initial sighting was of a distant object (probably an [earth bound] vehicle of some kind) and the later ones a much smaller, nearer object such as a firefly.

Of course it doesn't. But I repeat: the more novel the experience and the less opportunity we have to verify it the more likely we are to misinterpret it. Most conclusions based on firsthand experience are accurate because the experiences are not novel and there is ample objective evidence against which they have already been verified.


In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating, as that's usually more likely.

Pixel:

There are a couple of issues to address. At first the idea that in the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it seems logical, and in the context of your card reader example, I would tend to agree. However a phony card reader is a con game to win someone's confidence in an unseen psychic ability, while UFO sightings involve the observation of things. A physical stimulus response has to take place, and that is harder to pull off.

Certainly a clever hoax can fool someone, but as you say, "In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating." and I would also tend to agree. So then what we are dealing with is an important change in context where the general principle you posit runs into some trouble with logic. Let's review:

"In the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it."

Now the question becomes, misinterpret what? With respect to UFOs the answer is typically something mundane. Where the logic of the proposed principle fails is that if the object is in fact mundane, then its very nature also makes is not novel, and therefore it should be easily recognized without verification.

So in actuality when considering a UFO experience a more accurate principle would be something like: The more novel the experience, the more likely we are not able to identify it as something familiar. And this does indeed make more sense, so much so that it becomes rapidly self-evident. Now this doesn't mean that misinterpretations cannot take place but it requires us to shift the context again to include novel or unfamiliar environmental conditions. In this context your rule of thumb would be something like:

"The more unfamiliar the conditions are under which something is observed, the more likely we are to misinterpret it as something unknown."

The above I would tend to agree with, and sometimes all it takes is one aspect of the conditions to be a little unusual to make a significant difference in our perception and interpretation, especially if the experience is very short lived. The illusion of our car rolling forward when it's not ( mentioned before ) is an excellent example of extremely familiar circumstances being completely misread by our senses. The thing is, UFO investigators, and in particular those in the USAF took these factors into consideration. Educated people were directly involved in the collection and analysis of reports, including the interviewing of witnesses. They wanted to know the truth about these objects because the defense of the nation depended on them having accurate information. There was no agenda at that time for the Air Force to create some mass illusion that Earth was being visited by Flying Saucers. In fact, it was quite the opposite, yet there remained a significant number of reports where the objects observed could not be reasonably explained as any known manmade or natural phenomena.

Civilian investigators and students of ufology are supposed to be equally as diligent at considering the possible misperceptions, but obviously, without a structured command or accountability like in the USAF, the reliability of civilian reports warrants a greater degree of skepticism.

With respect to my own sighting. It looks like you may have missed a few things. I actually have plenty of good reasons to believe that what I saw was an alien craft. What I don't have is evidence that proves to a third party such as yourself that those reasons are valid. And without rehashing the whole story that's what it comes down to. But if you want to review a few of the details anyway, just to clarify, then I don't mind answering a few of your questions.

 

[abaddon]

Pixel:

There are a couple of issues to address.

What? Address the ones you ignored throughout this very thread.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Not every day you get to watch a strawman under construction. Generally they just spring fully formed from the buttocks.

 

[Pixel42]

in the context of your card reader example

Cold reader. Not card reader.

However a phony card reader is a con game to win someone's confidence in an unseen psychic ability, while UFO sightings involve the observation of things. A physical stimulus response has to take place, and that is harder to pull off.

By no means. It's all seeing connections and patterns in what you are perceiving which might not necessarily be there because of cognitive biases most people don't even know they have. Vision is particularly prone to this.

Now the question becomes, misinterpret what? With respect to UFOs the answer is typically something mundane. Where the logic of the proposed principle fails is that if the object is in fact mundane, then its very nature also makes is not novel, and therefore it should be easily recognized without verification.

There are plenty of objects/phenomenona which are mundane but are unfamiliar to many people. For example there was a recent thread here started by someone who had seen something they couldn't explain which turned out to be a Chinese sky lantern - they simply hadn't ever seen one before. Plenty of people live in cities and almost never look up because there is nothing that can be seen - take them into the country and almost everything they see in the night sky is unfamiliar and might well be misinterpreted, even though it's perfectly mundane.

I actually have plenty of good reasons to believe that what I saw was an alien craft.

No, you really don't.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Blathering and rationalizations to maintain the "UFOs = alien craft" fantasy snipped. *] The thing is, UFO investigators, and in particular those in the USAF took these factors into consideration. Educated people were directly involved in the collection and analysis of reports, including the interviewing of witnesses. They wanted to know the truth about these objects because the defense of the nation depended on them having accurate information. There was no agenda at that time for the Air Force to create some mass illusion that Earth was being visited by Flying Saucers. In fact, it was quite the opposite, yet there remained a significant number of reports where the objects observed could not be reasonably explained as any known manmade or natural phenomena.

And here's that question again, the one the entire field of "ufology" doesn't seem to be able to answer: Of all the things which have been seen and initially unidentified, including all the subjects of all those Air Force investigations, of all those unidentified things which were eventually identified as some particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft?

Come on, give it a go. Although it is glaringly obvious that ignorance, evasion, dishonesty, and lack of scientific integrity are foundation stones of the pseudoscience of "ufology", it does seem quite irrational for an entire "field of research" to be so deathly afraid of confronting reality by providing a simple answer to a simple question. So again, of all the things seen and initially unidentified, upon being eventually identified as some particular thing, how many turned out to be alien craft? And please do include all those things that any Air Force investigations objectively determined to be alien craft. And all the things any trained observers objectively determined to be alien craft. Of all of them, in a number, how many were alien craft?

I predict the simple question will once again be met with abject ignorance.

 

[23_Tauri]

Pixel:

There are a couple of issues to address.

Only a couple?

At first the idea that in the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it seems logical, and in the context of your card reader example, I would tend to agree.

What card reader, where?

However a phony card reader is a con game to win someone's confidence in an unseen psychic ability, while UFO sightings involve the observation of things. A physical stimulus response has to take place, and that is harder to pull off.

What?

Certainly a clever hoax can fool someone, but as you say, "In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating." and I would also tend to agree. So then what we are dealing with is an important change in context where the general principle you posit runs into some trouble with logic. Let's review:

"In the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it."

Now the question becomes, misinterpret what? With respect to UFOs the answer is typically something mundane. Where the logic of the proposed principle fails is that if the object is in fact mundane, then its very nature also makes is not novel, and therefore it should be easily recognized without verification.

No. Just because something is mundane does not mean that it’s observation isn’t a novel event to the observer.
For example:

• RB-47 pilots seeing a meteorite coming towards their jet – novel event, mundane explanation.
• Air force pilots in Campeche mistake oil well flares for strange, moving phenomena – novel event, mundane explanation
• Mr J Randall Murphy sees truck bobbing up and down through the hills at night and then fireflies in the early morning, whilst on holiday at a ranch – novel event, mundane explanation.

So in actuality when considering a UFO experience a more accurate principle would be something like: The more novel the experience, the more likely we are not able to identify it as something familiar.

Not necessarily. What can produce novelty is the convergence of various, separate events or phenomena at the same time under particular conditions. Doesn’t mean the phenomena themselves weren’t of mundane origin.

And this does indeed make more sense, so much so that it becomes rapidly self-evident. Now this doesn't mean that misinterpretations cannot take place but it requires us to shift the context again to include novel or unfamiliar environmental conditions.

Oh good, so at least you understand this bit.

In this context your rule of thumb would be something like:

"The more unfamiliar the conditions are under which something is observed, the more likely we are to misinterpret it as something unknown."

The above I would tend to agree with, and sometimes all it takes is one aspect of the conditions to be a little unusual to make a significant difference in our perception and interpretation, especially if the experience is very short lived.

Like a firefly, if we weren’t used to seeing firefly dances in the cold light of dawn, yes?

The illusion of our car rolling forward when it's not ( mentioned before ) is an excellent example of extremely familiar circumstances being completely misread by our senses. The thing is, UFO investigators, and in particular those in the USAF took these factors into consideration. Educated people were directly involved in the collection and analysis of reports, including the interviewing of witnesses. They wanted to know the truth about these objects because the defense of the nation depended on them having accurate information. There was no agenda at that time for the Air Force to create some mass illusion that Earth was being visited by Flying Saucers. In fact, it was quite the opposite, yet there remained a significant number of reports where the objects observed could not be reasonably explained as any known manmade or natural phenomena.

And what did all these “educated people” who worked on Blue Book conclude? Oh yes, I remember:

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

With respect to my own sighting. It looks like you may have missed a few things. I actually have plenty of good reasons to believe that what I saw was an alien craft.

Don’t want to appear rude, but you haven’t shared them with us. Unless it boils down to “I know what I saw, and nuffink you horrid sceptics say can ever take away my belief in aliens”.

 

[mike3]

Paul,

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content. The witch analogy pushers have only created a mocking way of saying that because there is no verifiable scientific evidence for witches and UFOs there is no rationale for believing in one or the other. While this is true on a superficial level, there are significant differences that make believeing in one or the other more reasonable than the other, and certainly provide more reasons to engage in the pursuit of verifiable scientific evidence.

Did you see Toke's post?:

The witches were brought in to illustrate the "merit" of witness testimony and less that stringent approach to evidence.
Pointing out that there are more evidence for witches than for flying saucers is not the same as suggesting them as an explanation for UFOs. A point that is apparently lost on ufology.

And as far as I can see, this point still stands. And as you can see, it does not have to do with "mockery". Though sometimes, mockery may be used, it's not the main point. Just ignore the actual mockery and see the main point. Wheat is present here, it's not all chaff.

 

[mike3]

That's cool. But you can't always know the difference between fictional stories and ones based on reality with absolute certainty. Furthermore some stories are partly true and partly fictional, especially docudramas. I think the important thing is to remain constructively skeptical and open minded to the various ways of looking at the possibilities and the probabilities ... and of course the evidence, whatever that may be.

Aha! That's right... so how can you be sure of the difference between an anecdote that's "good" and one that isn't?

 

[GeeMack]

With respect to my own sighting. It looks like you may have missed a few things. I actually have plenty of good reasons to believe that what I saw was an alien craft.

With respect to reality, what you claim as your own sighting is backed by no objective evidence to support the notion that it's true. None. Zero. It does, however, have a substantial body of evidence, provided by you, in this thread, objective evidence, to support the notion that it's made up in its entirety, a work of fiction, an attempt to deceive, a hoax.

What I don't have is evidence that proves to a third party such as yourself that those reasons are valid. And without rehashing the whole story that's what it comes down to. But if you want to review a few of the details anyway, just to clarify, then I don't mind answering a few of your questions.

What you don't have is any objective evidence whatsoever. You have no evidence to suggest that your tale even might be true. And as far as answering a few questions, there have been dozens of questions that actually directly address the core of the issue which you have intentionally ignored. It's pretty transparent that "ufology" is all about telling UFO tales and talking about the big one that got away, and not in any way about research and/or evidence.

It's a lot like recent discussion in the Bigfoot arena on these forums. If you never do the work necessary to really find an alien craft among the UFO tales, if you steadfastly hold "ufology" within the realms of pseudoscience, you can go on talking and talking. But if someone ever does identify some previously unidentified thing as an alien craft, all the self proclaimed "ufologists" got nothin'. Real scientists won't have them around because "ufologists" already have a record of 100% failure.

 

[Garrison]

Pixel:

There are a couple of issues to address. At first the idea that in the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it seems logical, and in the context of your card reader example, I would tend to agree. However a phony card reader is a con game to win someone's confidence in an unseen psychic ability, while UFO sightings involve the observation of things. A physical stimulus response has to take place, and that is harder to pull off.

Really? Stage magicians pull it off all the time, and they don't even need any elaborate props to do it. A simple trick I saw as a child, and even made work myself. Take a tissue, ball it up in one hand. stand your subject/victim right in front of you. Raise the hand with the tissue over your head and bring it down three times hard into the palm of the other hand. After the third time you open your hand and the tissue is gone, how? I'll put the solution as a spoiler:

When you raise you hand the last time let go of the tissue and it flies off!

Now why does that work? Because the participant is so intent on watching the fist smack into the palm that they miss the bigger picture. The same basic principle applies to the invisible gorilla

To quote the most pertient part of that page(my bold):

This experiment reveals two things: that we are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and that we have no idea that we are missing so much.

Back to Ufology:

Certainly a clever hoax can fool someone, but as you say, "In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating." and I would also tend to agree. So then what we are dealing with is an important change in context where the general principle you posit runs into some trouble with logic. Let's review:

"In the absence of verification, the more novel the experience, the more likely we are to misinterpret it."

Like failing to see a gorilla in a basketball game?

Now the question becomes, misinterpret what? With respect to UFOs the answer is typically something mundane. Where the logic of the proposed principle fails is that if the object is in fact mundane, then its very nature also makes is not novel, and therefore it should be easily recognized without verification.

You mean like the familiar shape of gorilla seen in an unexpected situation?

I've cut the rest because you are painfully unaware of the experimental evidence that points to how poor human perception is. Oh and if you want to know how easily memory is distorted try:

Bugs Bunny at Disneyland

Again to quote from the link:

"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory can be created," she adds. "Memory is very vulnerable and malleable."

 

[John Albert]

the same basic principle applies to the invisible gorilla

Racist!

 

[Garrison]

Racist!

I'm guessing that's a joke but I haven't clue what you're talking about.

 

[ufology]

Cold reader. Not card reader.


By no means. It's all seeing connections and patterns in what you are perceiving which might not necessarily be there because of cognitive biases most people don't even know they have. Vision is particularly prone to this.


There are plenty of objects/phenomenona which are mundane but are unfamiliar to many people. For example there was a recent thread here started by someone who had seen something they couldn't explain which turned out to be a Chinese sky lantern - they simply hadn't ever seen one before. Plenty of people live in cities and almost never look up because there is nothing that can be seen - take them into the country and almost everything they see in the night sky is unfamiliar and might well be misinterpreted, even though it's perfectly mundane.


No, you really don't.

Ignore this one ... somehow the forum software made a duplicate copy ... see next post instead.

 

[ufology]

Cold reader. Not card reader.


By no means. It's all seeing connections and patterns in what you are perceiving which might not necessarily be there because of cognitive biases most people don't even know they have. Vision is particularly prone to this.


There are plenty of objects/phenomenona which are mundane but are unfamiliar to many people. For example there was a recent thread here started by someone who had seen something they couldn't explain which turned out to be a Chinese sky lantern - they simply hadn't ever seen one before. Plenty of people live in cities and almost never look up because there is nothing that can be seen - take them into the country and almost everything they see in the night sky is unfamiliar and might well be misinterpreted, even though it's perfectly mundane.


No, you really don't.

About cold reading and card reading. I knew what you meant and assumed you would make the connection between card readers and cold readers and your point. So technically it's my fault for not being more clear. And your last example makes sense in the context I posed at the end of our last exchange. So without being too nitpicky, and the issues of my own sighting aside, it seems we're pretty much in synch with the basic intent of your points. Thanks for lightening up a little.

BTW: I'm assembling a list of books ( recommended reading to post on my website that deal with UFOs and the paranormal from a skeptical, critical thinking and/or more detached point of view point of view. So far I've got the following:

Scientific Perspectives on Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account

Any other suggestions you or the other skeptics can offer, particularly from Amazon would be most welcome. This should be an easy way to positively contribute something constructive from a skeptical viewpoint directly to the people you think need it the most.

 

[23_Tauri]

About cold reading and card reading. I knew what you meant and assumed you would make the connection between card readers and cold readers and your point.

Sorry, what connection? What has cold reading got to do with card tricks?

 

[RoboTimbo]

BTW: I'm assembling a list of books ( recommended reading to post on my website that deal with UFOs and the paranormal from a skeptical, critical thinking and/or more detached point of view point of view. So far I've got the following:

You should add:

Witchcraft in Europe 400-1700: A Documentary History

I assume you want to provide all the different explanations for UFOs ( witches )?