Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: JimOberg
The idea has been offered that in a collection of unexplainable cases, the more that are explained, the MORE likely that some of the remaining are genuinely anomalous. That is, the more often a person has been proved wrong that a list of cases is anomalous, the more likely they will turn OUT to be right "at least once". I've got a nagging feeling there's something fundamentally flawed about that logic. It's sort of a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" proposition. ?

The flaw in the logic has to do with lumping the cases all together as the same thing, rather than considering each one of them a unique experience.

It would at first seem that as a person hones their investigative skills and identifies and explains the cases, then when those skills are applied to a new case the odds of finding an explanation would go up. So if somebody is unable to explain a case using those proven methods, then the new, unexplained case MUST be legitimately otherworldy.

Unfortunately, it just means that for the individual case there is either not enough data to parse out an explanation using the proven methods, or that there is yet another as yet untried or unknown method for finding an explanation that just hasn't been used. The sighting or phenomena isn't unknown. The way to find out what it is is unknown.

originally posted by: Scdfa


My experiences fill a book, and I'm working on that book

As a matter of interest, will your book be free?

a reply to: Blue Shift

The flaw in the logic has to do with lumping the cases all together as the same thing, rather than considering each one of them a unique experience.

I think there are a number of flaws. I think the biggest flaw is that people will focus on only those unexplained cases and when one gets explained sufficiently it gets tossed because they only want to talk about the ones that could be alien encounters. so there is this very skewed view of what's going on. So there is this "mountain of evidence" for aliens but right next to that is a mountain that is 95% bigger which is made up of those cases that used to be evidence for aliens.

originally posted by: OnionHead

originally posted by: Scdfa


My experiences fill a book, and I'm working on that book

As a matter of interest, will your book be free?

Hmm. If I want to work that hard for free I'd be a professional poet!

But then again, if I were to charge, they'd cite that as evidence of a huckster out to make a buck.

a reply to: JimOberg

The significance of the Yukon case is, to me, enormous, along with a few dozen others where fireball swarms were consistently misinterpreted as a large structure with mounted lights. Without such documented events, I could not have believed how common this misperception could be.

Besides the short duration(although that is in question), there arent too many cases where the UFO is lit up like a Christmas tree, imo the fireball type cases should be less weighty. Craft is reported half mile to a mile in size, hard to say what is and what isnt a reasonable UFO size, but I would also move gigantic UFOs down on any credibility list.

a reply to: draknoir2
Im sure you already know how cool you are..

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I think there are a number of flaws. I think the biggest flaw is that people will focus on only those unexplained cases and when one gets explained sufficiently it gets tossed because they only want to talk about the ones that could be alien encounters. so there is this very skewed view of what's going on. So there is this "mountain of evidence" for aliens but right next to that is a mountain that is 95% bigger which is made up of those cases that used to be evidence for aliens.

Right idea, wrong math.

95% explained/5% unexplained=19:1 ratio or 19 times as big, or 100% + 1800% bigger. That 1800% bigger (or 1900% as big) sounds more like the mountain which you correctly referred to.

Surprisingly there are still some who want to claim the Yukon case is more than a satellite re-entry, but yes, most rational people eventually toss the explained cases.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Besides the short duration(although that is in question), there arent too many cases where the UFO is lit up like a Christmas tree, imo the fireball type cases should be less weighty. Craft is reported half mile to a mile in size, hard to say what is and what isnt a reasonable UFO size, but I would also move gigantic UFOs down on any credibility list.

This Linn Murphy "UFO" has been reported as having a huge size like the size of a football field, so we know witness reports are entirely unreliable regarding the size of unknown UFOs.



We simply have no way to judge distance or size of unknown objects accurately, unless they fly in front of a known landmark and even in those cases you can't be sure as seen in the shuttle tether incident on UFO hunters.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Right idea, wrong math.

Ha! I realized that as I was typing it but was too lazy to work it out. Its been a long day of thinking

but yes, most rational people eventually toss the explained cases.

No! don't toss them. Keep them! but keep them as solved cases. They are useful to compare against. I want to hear from all the witnesses that saw something they thought was a UFO or alien space craft but was latter explained. That's the important part that's missing. Its great to identify something but the reactions of the witnesses is going to tell us something. In other words the reactions will be the same whether its later identified or not. You know those witnesses that see UFOs aren't delusional morons except for those other 95%, I guess they are?

originally posted by: 111DPKING111...
Besides the short duration(although that is in question), there arent too many cases where the UFO is lit up like a Christmas tree, imo the fireball type cases should be less weighty. Craft is reported half mile to a mile in size, hard to say what is and what isnt a reasonable UFO size, but I would also move gigantic UFOs down on any credibility list.

So, the Hudson Valley triangle and the Phoenix Lights get downgraded? Well, maybe.

But re your main point, Ted Molczan and I have found about twenty well-documented cases of satellite reentries creating brief fireball swarms where some witnesses reported fireball swarms and others, observing exactly the same apparition, perceived large structured objects lit up like Christmas trees. My draft report was linked a few pages back under the title of 1963 Kiev fireball swarm. Your critical comments would be appreciated.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JimOberg
The idea has been offered that in a collection of unexplainable cases, the more that are explained, the MORE likely that some of the remaining are genuinely anomalous. That is, the more often a person has been proved wrong that a list of cases is anomalous, the more likely they will turn OUT to be right "at least once". I've got a nagging feeling there's something fundamentally flawed about that logic. It's sort of a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" proposition. ?

The flaw in the logic has to do with lumping the cases all together as the same thing, rather than considering each one of them a unique experience.

It would at first seem that as a person hones their investigative skills and identifies and explains the cases, then when those skills are applied to a new case the odds of finding an explanation would go up. So if somebody is unable to explain a case using those proven methods, then the new, unexplained case MUST be legitimately otherworldy.

Unfortunately, it just means that for the individual case there is either not enough data to parse out an explanation using the proven methods, or that there is yet another as yet untried or unknown method for finding an explanation that just hasn't been used. The sighting or phenomena isn't unknown. The way to find out what it is is unknown.

but the idea that because some - less than 1% of the 1300 - have been explained as prosaic, they will all eventually be explained in a similar way, is equally erroneous. If three cars made in Japan pass you on the street consecutively that does not mean the next one will also be made in Japan.

originally posted by: EnPassant
If three cars made in Japan pass you on the street consecutively that does not mean the next one will also be made in Japan.

Nor does it increase the likelihood that the fourth will have been made elsewhere.

a reply to: EnPassant

but the idea that because some - less than 1% of the 1300 - have been explained as prosaic, they will all eventually be explained in a similar way, is equally erroneous. If three cars made in Japan pass you on the street consecutively that does not mean the next one will also be made in Japan.

Yes, that is what is known as likelihood. There would be an actual number that you can arrive at because we KNOW about all the different cars and where they are made. Where cars are made is quantifiable. However, the odds of the next car being made from somewhere that we don't even know exists is unknowable. You can figure out the odds of the next car being American made but what would be the odds of the next car being from Atlantis?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
You can figure out the odds of the next car being American made but what would be the odds of the next car being from Atlantis?

Not bad.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
You can figure out the odds of the next car being American made but what would be the odds of the next car being from Atlantis?

Not bad.

I stand corrected. I was always under the impression that Atlanta was a fable.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
You can figure out the odds of the next car being American made but what would be the odds of the next car being from Atlantis?

Not bad.

I stand corrected. I was always under the impression that Atlanta was a fable.

It's a major travel hub, so odds are the aliens will at least have to layover there.

originally posted by: EnPassant
..... but the idea that because some - less than 1% of the 1300 - have been explained as prosaic, they will all eventually be explained in a similar way, is equally erroneous. If three cars made in Japan pass you on the street consecutively that does not mean the next one will also be made in Japan.

Your analogy is sloppy, fatally erroneous, and I'm disappointed in you.

It includes reliance on the tacit knowledge that there exist cars NOT built in Japan.

So you start by quietly ASSUMING facts not in evidence that prove the point you pretend to be testing.

Try to do better.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
..... but the idea that because some - less than 1% of the 1300 - have been explained as prosaic, they will all eventually be explained in a similar way, is equally erroneous. If three cars made in Japan pass you on the street consecutively that does not mean the next one will also be made in Japan.

Your analogy is sloppy, fatally erroneous, and I'm disappointed in you.

It includes reliance on the tacit knowledge that there exist cars NOT built in Japan.

So you start by quietly ASSUMING facts not in evidence that prove the point you pretend to be testing.

Try to do better.

Easy on the arrogance, please, En Passant's point remains completely valid; you've offered prosaic explanations for less than 1% of these cases. Try and keep that in perspective before berating a true thinker like En Passant.

Furthermore, just because you offer a more "prosaic"explanation for a UFO sighting, you have in no way established that "explanation" to be what these witnesses observed, correct?

I've read up on some of your claims, some of them are laughably inadequate, and simply unrealistic excuses. One case involved multiple witnesses of a disc-shaped craft with rectangular-shaped windows, the craft illuminated from within as well as having external lights, hovering silently, then moving slowly low to the ground over a lake, before accelerating rapidly to a high rate of speed.

You claimed that what these people really witnessed was a rocket re-entry some two-hundred miles away, that occurred hours after their sighting. And when your brilliant cover story doesn't fit at all to what the witnesses described, well, you tell them they are simply "poor observers".

And you accuse En Passant of sloppy work? You tell En Passant to "try to do better"?

You know, it's odd that with your undeniable credentials and storied career, I know more about UFOs and alien ships than you do, starting with the simple fact that some UFOs are alien ships. I know this for a fact, and I've known it since 1966 through first hand direct contact. And I know people even at NASA who know this is a fact.

I'm not so convinced you aren't one of them, but if that is your position, who am I to call you informed?

a reply to: Scdfa

Easy on the arrogance, please, En Passant's point remains completely valid; you've offered prosaic explanations for less than 1% of these cases. Try and keep that in perspective before berating a true thinker like En Passant.

But if you look only at the 1% of the ones he explained and exclude all the others, he is at 100%. That is the same type of excruciatingly, horrifically sloppy thinking that is employed by believers if you ignore the 95% of the resolved cases and focus solely on the "unexplained" stories.

ADD -- scdfa has advised me I'm not talking about the case he was talking about, so this response is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Scdfa....

I've read up on some of your claims, some of them are laughably inadequate, and simply unrealistic excuses. One case involved multiple witnesses of a disc-shaped craft with rectangular-shaped windows, the craft illuminated from within as well as having external lights, hovering silently, then moving slowly low to the ground over a lake, before accelerating rapidly to a high rate of speed.

You claimed that what these people really witnessed was a rocket re-entry some two-hundred miles away, that occurred hours after their sighting. And when your brilliant cover story doesn't fit at all to what the witnesses described, well, you tell them they are simply "poor observers".

And you accuse En Passant of sloppy work? You tell En Passant to "try to do better"?.....

Thanks for looking into my report www.jamesoberg.com...
and specifically offering a critique of one case ["Bahamas, Jan 1985"] at
satobs.org...

I am puzzled by your claim that the offered explanation "occurred hours after their sighting." Unless you have independent documentation on the event [please share it if you do], I do not know the time of their event and did not report it. Hundreds of miles away, people in south Florida reported a fireball, calling in to a radio station after “about 10 pm” EST, versus 02:45 UT for the satellite reentry. How is that "hours after"? EST is 5 hours behind Greenwich -- didn't you know that?

You also assert that the reentry was two hundred miles away, but again I have no knowledge of the boat's location except "Bahamas" [please share if you have such data], and the calculated reentry track was right over the Bahamas -- so I have no idea how you derived that distance, unless perhaps merely as a wild guess. Please explain your methodology to derive that distance.

[delete snarkiness]