Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.
I'm not so sure they'd be that interesting, why expect a fair appraisal? Any idiot can call himself a skeptic, and it is fairly obvious that the label suffers abuse from a-intellectual deniers. It's why the late Truzzi left CSICOP, pseudo skepticism is real. You see this all over the internet, people with no academic credentials/degrees spout off about how they're all into science and skepticism, yet don't have a clue at all. It's more of a feel good club than anything else.


And any idiot can call me a "skeptic".




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Harte
 


So it's all plasma balls, is this what you are saying? That there hasn't been any cases of actual unidentified craft (of whatever origin, even human). Even when there are clear cases of aircraft or devices/drones, despite the many misidentifications of lots of other cases? That would be quite bad and wrong to think.


Yep, Plasma every one!

No, seriously, each case has its own explanation. Balls of plasma often appear shiny like metal and can be seen on radar. To me, if not you, this means they could account for some of the "unexplained" cases.

Along with the other things I mentioned.

Surely you must realize that most "unexplained" cases remain unexplained due to a complete absence of evidence other than eyewitness accounts. If an eyewitness makes a claim, and the witness is reasonably legitimate, unless an investigator can come up with some corroboration the case must remain "unexplained."

Harte



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by draknoir2

Do you do anything BUT the straw man routine?


Above you avoided my questions by saying "it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position."

Even if true (and it's not), that couldn't possibly apply here, correct? Because I clearly said "feel free to offer something more open-ended", and then near the end, "Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me."


I'm skeptical even for a skeptic, and I've offered several of the above. Does this exclude me from the gang of evildoers you're bashing?

Harte



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
(snip)
....Surely you must realize that most "unexplained" cases remain unexplained due to a complete absence of evidence other than eyewitness accounts. If an eyewitness makes a claim, and the witness is reasonably legitimate, unless an investigator can come up with some corroboration the case must remain "unexplained."


Have you read up on early UFO history? Because unfortunately, what you imply above was refuted long ago by the Air Force itself. They and Battelle teamed up to produce Blue Book Special Report 14. (See especially pages 11-13 and 24-25.) The report was written in the early 1950's, but is, to this day, probably the most detailed scientific and statistical analysis of UFOs ever undertaken. It should be among the first things that anyone interested in UFOs takes a look at. I think it's fair to say that any person not familiar with it has little business offering authoritative-sounding opinions on UFOs.

But back to the central point. The presence in that study of both an "Unknown" and an "Insufficient Information" category tells us that the unknowns are not "unknown" simply due to a lack of reliable information. If you look at page 12, it says that unknowns are "unknown" because the "description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon."

Any UFO report with incomplete, vague, conflicting or nebulous descriptions was either placed into the "Insufficient Information" category, or was tossed out altogether. (Explained below.)

The report obviously contradicts the idea that the "unknowns" are just future "knowns" stuck in line waiting for more information or a better investigator to come along. Note that despite its uncomfortable fit with decades-old findings, that argument apparently remains one of the modern skeptics' favorites.... This is the kind of thing that needs to be pointed out in a thread with this title.

Back to the study.... It's important to remember that this was an analysis of around 3,000 UFO sighting reports by highly competent and specially trained scientists and engineers. (See bottom.)

It should also be understood that besides ultimate identification into the categories "Astronomical", "Aircraft", "Balloon", "Insufficient Information", "Unknown" or "Other", the UFO reports were further categorized by quality and reliability of the sighting data.

The results? Striking:
-- Of the "Good" quality sightings, 24.8% of the objects were "Unknown", 3.6% had "Insufficient Information", and the rest were explained.
-- Of the "Excellent" quality sightings (characterized as such due to longer viewing times, closer proximity to object, greater number of witnesses, better reliability, etc.), 33.2% of the objects were "Unknown", 4.2% had "Insufficient Information", and the rest were explained.

The percentage of "Unknowns" went DOWN as the quality of the reports decreased, down to 16.6% "Unknown" for "Poor" quality sightings, and 13% "Unknown" for the least reliable, "Doubtful" reports.

To me, that's pretty interesting.






-------------------------------------------
Portions of SR14 most relevant to the above:

"In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800 reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner." (p.11)

"Insufficient Information - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon." (p.12)

"Unknown - This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon." (p.12)

"It is emphasized again that, as was true for other phases of evaluation, preliminary and final identification was entrusted only to scientists and engineers who, in addition to their broad scientific background, had
received instruction, where necessary, in specialized subjects.The panel of consultants provided background information for this instruction. Many of the cases representing unusual features or maneuvers were submitted to and discussed with various members of the panel of consultants prior to the final identification." (p.13)
edit on 24-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I'll number these questions, for the sake of organization and discussion, but feel free to offer something more open-ended....

1) Do you believe science has objectively studied the phenomenon?
I believe scientists have studied the phenomena objectively. There are a number that have, and you would know this if you are scincerely interested in the topic. Sturrock and the AIAA are skeptical of the Condon reports conclusions but still offer no new knowledge or insight into the cause of the unexplained phenomena.



2) Do you believe all UFO reports ultimately have a mundane explanation? (That Earthly explanations always exist, but are just are not found due to lack of time, resources, data. knowledge and so on?)
If we look at the history and incidence of UFO, the vast majority do have mundane explanations. However, there are numerous unexplained incidence that cannot be ignored or dismissed. I think that one could argue that those numerous cases could be explained if given greater time, resources and as much data and knowledge as possible.


3) If you believe that all UFO reports do not necessarily have a mundane explanation, then, given the information that we have now, what hypotheses do you think best explain the remaining, residual unknowns? (A cascade of working hypotheses. And that's plural, so there's no need for your one-size-does-NOT-fit-all objection. Everyone knows there are likely multiple explanations.)

My approach would favour this:
Make the fewest assumptions as possible
So, if we are to entertain the ETH one has to do the following.
Make massive assumptions.

For one to inject an explanation, it would seem logical to show that the explanation actually exists?
Would it not?
For one to accept ETH as a valid explanation, simply show ET's. Then we can entertain the possibility or the hypothesis that UFO may be explained by the ETH.



4) Do you believe the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is viable? Extra-dimensional? (Or more generally, do you suspect any other intelligence is involved?)

Well, I might as well inject God, Jesus, Buddha, The Devil, Shiva, Isis and the myriad of other supernatural entities that are also mythologized as being intelligent.


5) If you think the ETH is not viable, why not? (Since that's the only one that fits sufficiently well into our current physics, I'll refrain from asking the same about the EDH, etc.)

The ETH is not viable as an explanation simply because you cannot show that ET's actually exist.

For the ETH to fit within our current understanding of physics, simply show ET's exist. That would be the scientific approach, confirm the existence of the ET in the UFO to show your hypothesis is viable.
That would be the logical thing to do, would it not?
Otherwise we can inject any entity into the UFO as a way of explaining it without actually having to prove that the explanation actually physically exists.

Given your are injecting an abstract entity as an explanation, why just propose ETH, why not any other abstract entity?
Why not?
Because you are using Science and Technology to legitimize just one abstract entity amongst a plethora. This is simply a personal bias.
Studying this topic long enough has presented me with a large number of UFO explanations. One being the proposition that the devil is manifesting UFO and ET experiences as a way of destroying a belief in God. This is no different to injecting ET as a hypothesis.
I don't need to prove the devil exists now, Do I?



Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me. However... if you want to be perceived as more than a minor, tricky annoyance, you do need to put your own views out there.

I find this amusing, considering you rely on the Condon report, siting Surrock, Vallee and others that actually argue against or state catogorically that there is no evidence that supports the ETH.

Keeping an open mind is a two way street.

It seems that you want people to entertain something as plausible and viable without having to even show that it actually exists as a real alternative. Whilst stating it best fits with current physics, WTF?

And you wonder why people are skeptical.

I will quote from the OP's article to highlight that it is your very own mindset that is trying to trick people, and not that of the skeptic.


That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof.

As if the above is a trick or deception. Its called science, not religion.

You may argue that it is the Condon report that has crippled the scientific approach to the UFO field etc etc.
But ultimately, you know, as does Sturrock, Vallee et al that there simply is no evidence that shows or supports the ETH.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


Have you read up on early UFO history? Because unfortunately, what you imply above was refuted long ago by the Air Force itself. They and Battelle teamed up to produce Blue Book Special Report 14. (See especially pages 11-13 and 24-25.) The report was written in the early 1950's, but is, to this day, probably the most detailed scientific and statistical analysis of UFOs ever undertaken. It should be among the first things that anyone interested in UFOs takes a look at. I think it's fair to say that any person not familiar with it has little business offering authoritative-sounding opinions on UFOs.
I have read the reports. The entire Archive is available online. All the Projects,Sign, Grudge, Stork- Blue Book are there.

What is equally important about these projects is that they had specific agenda's and questions about the UFO phenomena, which the studies themselves satisfied.
Questions that related to national security, the ability to gain new knowlede or technology and that there was no evidence of extraterrestrial involvement.

In light of that, your following statements regarding "unknown" is qualified by the report to an extent.

Before I address your other comments, you do know that a significant number of the "sightings" were gathered from clippings from newspapers for the Projects don't you? That these were forwarded to Battelle for statistical analysis.


But back to the central point. The presence in that study of both an "Unknown" and an "Insufficient Information" category tells us that the unknowns are not "unknown" simply due to a lack of reliable information. If you look at page 12, it says that unknowns are "unknown" because the "description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon."


I won't address the rest of your post because ultimately you are merely trying to infer that the characteristics of "unknown" is somehow a value that should support the ETH. Am I mistaken?

You fail to include that the Battelle Memorial Institute, after the indepth statistical analysis you point out, made no such conclusion? In fact they point out that the value of the reports were purely subjective and not based on facts but evaluations and the estimations of the individuals involved.

So they qualify the value of "unknown" quite specifically.

Future studies into the phenomena by the likes of Sturrock as well as other groups like GEPAN and SERPA, EMBLA and Condign all come to the same end, whilst there are genuinely unexplainable phenomena that is being reported, it is not possible to make any conclusion that includes any ETH.

Velasco, who was involved in SERPA, believes that the ETH is the explantion for the percentage of high quality UFO sightings that cannot be explained.
I think he has a book on it. Surprisingly!

Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.

Not one.

Ever.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
For one to accept ETH as a valid explanation, simply show ET's. Then we can entertain the possibility or the hypothesis that UFO may be explained by the ETH.
Apply for the moment your assumptions to SETI. Confined to your thought-box they too would need to produce an alien before any signal can be accepted as evidence of ETs. Obviously that's not going to work, since the signal might be the only evidence found. What you are seriously trying to argue is that one needs proof of X's existence before one can entertain evidence of X's existence. Logically this is absurd. In science there exists no rule that proof comes before evidence.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
I think he has a book on it. Surprisingly!
Poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc. Because someone wrote a book, he is considered suspect of making money. Well here is a surprise, pseudo-skeptics write books too. My god, they must be in it for the money as well.


Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.
Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."


But ultimately, you know, as does Sturrock, Vallee et al that there simply is no evidence that shows or supports the ETH.
Plenty of cases fit the ETH just nicely, so as a hypothesis it works just fine. Notice how you conflate proof and evidence, again. How's them windmills?
edit on 24-2-2013 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Any skeptic who thinks the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be explained by human psychology, misperception, hoaxes and unknown natural phenomena is implicitly recognizing some kind of "mass hallucination" theory, no? Because what else could possibly explain such a case when those mundanes are ruled out to a substantial degree of certainty?
this is a straw man. This statement also shows your misunderstanding of the word "hallucination". Again, you make the assumption that the mundanes have been ruled out. Take your JAL case that is being discussed in another thread currently. I think this would be one of your exceptionally good cases consisting of radar returns and multiple witnesses. Correct?

I argue that this is not a multiple witness case due to the fact that there is truly only one witness to the details of the objects and ONLY ONE witness to the mother ship.

It is becoming clear that the mother ship was a cloud that accounts for the radar returns as well. Anyone here can look at the facts of the case in great detail. Here is one fact. The on board radar had a radar return that suggested what was in front of them was a cloud. The captain rationalized this as being due to the mother ship being made of some kind of different metal.

When we "summarize" this case it sounds like this: multiple witness sighting of intelligently controlled vehicles confirmed by radar returns. I have also heard it like this: "the objects were seen by the captain and his entire crew".
While somewhat true, his entire crew consisted of 2 people.

Taking each part of this case and examining them individually, the case doesn't seem all that impressive. On a whole it might because we have 2 smaller objects followed by a large mother ship that was captured on radar. Obviously those 2 smaller objects came from the larger mother ship. The mother ship only appeared as a cloud because because of the alien metal they use.

Is this what you are referring to as a "synchronous mass hallucination"? Because I don't think that is the right description for what I believe this to be.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Apply for the moment your assumptions to SETI. Confined to your thought-box they too would need to produce an alien before any signal can be accepted as evidence of ETs.


Deeeerrrrrrrr!
That is what SETI is there for! To search for a signal, not to state ET exists without finding one. Are you stating that UFO are actually alien craft.
Any signal would be scrutinized the very same way the UFO phenomena is by skeptics! That is exactly what happened with Pulsars and Seyfert Galaxies when their signals were first encountered.
Should we just get a signal and state is must be alien in nature without validating it first.
Your analogy is assinine.
All Seti would state is that a signal is found, until its origins or cause are discovered it wouldn't state it was an Alien signal.
How could it?
The UFO phenomena is no different!


Its funny that you mention signals, because Fermi's paradox might interest you.


Obviously that's not going to work, since the signal might be the only evidence found. What you are seriously trying to argue is that one needs proof of X's existence before one can entertain evidence of X's existence. Logically this is absurd. In science there exists no rule that proof comes before evidence.

Are you insane?
Were did I state that proof comes before evidence?
How do you even label something as evidence of X without the very existence of X as a known?
I am simply stating, if you are proposing a hypothesis that contains ET as an explanation, then surely, one would have to point to the ET that exists so the hypothesis is valid.

Otherwise, what do you have?
No signal. You are expecting people to accept UFO as evidence of Alien life, right?
You are still searching for evidence for the very thing you want people to entertain as a valid explanation in place of any real evidence or proof. How do you explain UFO as being alien? Its all unknown.
You are stating that UFO be accepted as evidence of aliens when you need aliens as an explanation for the UFO.
Please.
You are merely suggesting that the "evidence" is explained by a cause you suggest from the "evidence".
Thats not logical at all.


I may be in a "thought-box", but at least my box actually contains thinking.
edit on 24/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

But back to the central point. The presence in that study of both an "Unknown" and an "Insufficient Information" category tells us that the unknowns are not "unknown" simply due to a lack of reliable information. If you look at page 12, it says that unknowns are "unknown" because the "description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon."


This is what in science is called a methodological error. The qualifier of both categories is, when it comes down to it, lack of information or evidence (information is evidence). Nothing is ever viewed as unexplainable in science. Maybe the unknown category was put there to ward off some of the pressure from UFO organizations I don't know. It is definitely not good science and this type of error would never pass peer-review today.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc. Because someone wrote a book, he is considered suspect of making money. Well here is a surprise, pseudo-skeptics write books too. My god, they must be in it for the money as well.

Can you point out were I state any of the above. Just point it out.
The only one who has poisoned the well is you!
I was surprised that he wrote a book rather than publish a scientific paper. Considering you question the lack of scientific respect for the topic.
There seems to be a trend in the field that prefers to publish books that present conjecture rather than publish scientific research for peer review.


Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship.
Ummm! Yeah, I read all the same reports TeaandStrumpets did. I pointed out what they really stated. I actually looked at what they used as "evidence". Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS.
I actually read that they qualify the evidence as "subjective evaluations and estimations" from individuals not to be taken as FACT!.

Did you read any of that, or did you just see the word "unknown" and then inserted "aliens".


I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."

What evidence are you talking about? Newspaper clippings and statistical analysis?
All you have is statistical analysis that places incidence into catagories.
These are then used by you to suggest "evidence".
All you really have in the end is the correlation of type of incidence based on the subjective quality of the individual presenting the UFO experience.
That is it!
And you know it.
To suggest then, contrary to the very research you use, that it implies evidence of any cause is simply reaching.


Plenty of cases fit the ETH just nicely, so as a hypothesis it works just fine. Notice how you conflate proof and evidence, again. How's them windmills?

What Hypothesis, you don't have a hypothesis, you have an assumption.
You have no evidence to support your hypothesis, you have an assumption.
The material you site, does not support your hypothesis, so again you make an assumption.

I pointed out in a post before that there is a belief that the UFO phenomena is caused by the "devil" in order to create a disbelief in God.
Do you need to see the Devil or God first, in order have any skepticism of this belief removed?
I doubt it?
What about the belief that unexplained UFO are future Humans travelling through time?
Need to see a time machine first TeaandStrumpet?
What about the belief that UFO's are manifestations of the human collective consciousness trying to create an avatar through which humanity will be brought together?
Too religious for you?
What about the belief that the UFO phenomena is actually a NWO plan under HAARP and Project Blue Beam to create a false flag Alien invasion in order to create a one world government?
We know HAARP exists?
Hmmmm evidence.

All these are hypothesis that actually exist out there in the topic. The ETH is no different. None of the above can actually show the very cause they claim is responsible for the phenomena.
The only diference is this: The existence of ET is accepted as possible by the scietific community. This is the only reason why you have a BIAS for ET over anyother supernatural explanation for UFO's.

All you are really doing is being inforned by culture that is updating its explanations for supernatural phenomena with an explanation that is accepted by the dominant paradigm of our times.
Instead of God, or the Devil, or demons and angels, dimensional beings etc etc you have inserted ETH.
That is all you have done.
Science does not deal with religion.
I think that is where you are having trouble with skeptics accepting your "evidence/religious belief".

Depending on your BIAS, ETH fits the best- FOR YOU.
And onto that claim:

None of the groups or the reports, the scientists or the researchers you site state catogorically that the incidence support the ETH.

Why did you not point out that the BlueBook S14 used many newspaper clippings as "evidence"?
Why did you not point out the conclusions relating to the ETH, that state no evidence suggests ET intelligence?
Why did you not include the fact that 20 years after BlueBook and Condon, more reports by numerous groups in numourous countries make the same statements regarding the UFO phenomena and the ETH?

Why not?

Who is in the "thought-box" now?



edit on 24/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I could hug you right now.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Game, set and match



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I could hug you right now.


get a room!

(CoffeeAndDoughnuts: that was a joke. I don't think there are any actual rooms but I agree that it is off topic and could possibly offend the quoted person and get the other party in trouble with his wife ( assuming sexual preference, that he is male amd married). However, since I have seen some of her off colored posts, I decided to chance it in favor of a chuckle)
edit on 24-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."


You just defined "straw man fallacy".


Originally posted by jclmavg

How's them windmills?


Stealing my metaphors now? If you really want to know just look out the _



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by jclmavg

Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings.Translation: "I'm a serious non-scientific pseudo-skeptic and the only acceptable evidence TO ME would actually have to be proof. Such as an alien body or a spaceship. I need no stinkin' evidence, bring me alien meat."


You just defined "straw man fallacy".


I think we have discovered a whole new fallacy.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro...
Before I address your other comments, you do know that a significant number of the "sightings" were gathered from clippings from newspapers for the Projects don't you? That these were forwarded to Battelle for statistical analysis.
From the introduction: "The reports received by the U. S. Air Force on unidentified aerial objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures."

From p.4: "Altogether, the data for this study ... were received through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably reliable sources."

And any report classified as low quality was put into the lesser categories or discarded.

Do you disagree with any of that?

What you mention has no bearing on the results I listed re: the "Good" and "Excellent" quality sightings.


I won't address the rest of your post because ultimately you are merely trying to infer that the characteristics of "unknown" is somehow a value that should support the ETH. Am I mistaken?
I don't infer or imply anything except that the unknowns were found to be significantly different. Of course the ETH is one viable explanation. The statistical results speak for themselves:
--The better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it is that the object would be ultimately unidentifiable.
--"In five of the six [object characteristic categories -- Speed, Duration, Shape, Color, Number of Objects, but not Brightness], the probability is less than 1 per cent that the distributions are the same." Even with Brightness, it was less than 1 in 3. Pages 60-70.


You fail to include that the Battelle Memorial Institute ... made no such conclusion? In fact they point out that the value of the reports were purely subjective....
What conclusion do you speak of? I just gave you references to them. Should I post images? And the subjectivity aspect is inherently obvious. Did you not read how that can be minimized?

"Evaluation of Individual Reports of sighting reports was recognized as a crucial step in the preparation of data for statistical treatment; inconsistent evaluations would have invalidated any conclusions to be derived from this study. A method of evaluation was, therefore, determined simultaneously with the development of the questionnaire, the coding system, and the work sheet. It is emphasized that all phases of evaluation, even including the tedious preparation of the original data for statistical treatment, were entrusted only to selected, specially qualified scientists and engineers...."

"The first step in evaluation, the deduction of discrete facts from subjective data, required certain calculations based on the information available in the sighting report. An example was the finding of the approximate angular velocity and acceleration of the object or objects sighted. Care was taken during this phase of the work to insure against the deduction of discrete facts not warranted by the original data. Thus, even though there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object, this was not assumed to be prima facie evidence that "flying saucers" did not exist."

"In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis."

That's all one could really ask for.

Let's not pretend that "subjectivity" can't be dealt with statistically. It's done all time.


Future studies into the phenomena by the likes of Sturrock as well as other groups like GEPAN and SERPA, EMBLA and Condign all come to the same end, whilst there are genuinely unexplainable phenomena that is being reported, it is not possible to make any conclusion that includes any ETH.
You mischaracterize. They say it's not possible to AFFIRM the ETH, nor can it be excluded. Not a subtle difference.


Velasco, who was involved in SERPA, believes that the ETH is the explantion for the percentage of high quality UFO sightings that cannot be explained. I think he has a book on it. Surprisingly!
Oberg, et al. sell books too, right?


Whilst you may site the statistical significance in the report that distinguishes the quality of "unknowns". Not once in the history of UFO have we been shown that these "unknown's" are actually known to be intelligently controlled by extra-terrestrial beings. Not one. Ever.
Stating the obvious? No ET bodies....
If our astrophysics says life likely exists all over, that we should be looking in our solar system (Davies, etc.), that it should be here by now (Fermi)... WHY is the ETH non-viable? Rejecting the ETH is silly. I'll have more to say on that.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Yeah, I read all the same reports TeaandStrumpets did. I pointed out what they really stated. I actually looked at what they used as "evidence". Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS.
Really? Are you a liar, or do you just play loose with the truth?

As I already showed... from p.4 of the Report: "Altogether, the data for this study ... were received through military channels or in the form of observer-completed questionnaires; a few were accepted in the form of direct letters from unquestionably reliable sources."

From the introduction: "The reports received by the U. S. Air Force on unidentified aerial objects were reduced to IBM punched-card abstracts of the data by means of logically developed forms and standardized evaluation procedures."

From page 11, and from the "Insufficient Information" category described on p.12, it's obvious that the type of report you're trying to inject here as the norm would have been either discarded, placed in the "Insufficient Information" category, or classified as of "Poor" reliability.

So how much weight should be given to your words?

This is very sad, all the hugging and high-fiving going on by the psuedo-skeptics. Celebrating obvious and easily-refuted points. I'm now getting that same "how embarrassing for them" feeling I get when I read that silly BadUFOs blog....


Originally posted by atlasastro
I actually read that they qualify the evidence as "subjective evaluations and estimations" from individuals not to be taken as FACT!
Of course no single report should be taken as 100% fact. Nice exclamation point there. As if your point contains some new revelation. Who argues that any single UFO report should be taken as 100% fact?
But if you believe -- and I think this is what you're trying to imply -- that subjectivity means we can say nothing about the reports in the aggregate, then you're not only loose with the truth (at best... see above), but you also don't understand the role that statistics play in science.

I see no reason to "converse" with you directly, given the above. In the upcoming days or so, I'll write something about why those of you who claim the ETH is not even viable don't even have mainstream science (nevermind "UFO science") on your side. Perhaps that should be it's own new thread, always easily pointed towards. It seems that's probably needed.
edit on 24-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
....How do you even label something as evidence of X without the very existence of X as a known?


Is there anyone who does not see the absurdity in that type of reasoning?

(Astoundingly, this member makes reference to the Fermi paradox only a few lines above that.)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join