Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

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.

no its not, we should find a way eliminating these solvable cases, if there is no way to realize or spot what went wrong in the investigation, how can you have any confidence in the other cases?

we should be able find a set of criteria to set the really good cases apart.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

Wrong case. I guess you use the same excuses often.

If I guessed wrong, my apologies. Do I need to keep guessing?

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
.....
we should be able find a set of criteria to set the really good cases apart.

That's the Holy Grail.

But even then, do you see how there still could be good be 'faux-good' cases immune to explanation even though there IS an explanation, just one that human investigators are unable to find?

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim: what is the frequency of satellites reentering the atmosphere (worldwide)? Are we talking about a couple everyday? Is there a rhyme of reason to reentry? Could the casual nighttime observer 'kick the tires' on a database of these satellite reentries, or is this information closed to the public? Many thanks in advance.

Reentries of the size and structure that create fireball swarms are predictable and occur several times a year, the VORTEX site on Facebook monitors them, as does www.satobs.org

Add in the requirement of clear night skies and you reduce further the likely rate of such observations.

However, OTHER prosaic stimuli also create bright-object-swarms -- the particular value of the reentries is that those events are documented precisely with locations, time, direction, and speeds, so can be unambiguously tied to ground observations.

These reentries are serendipitous control experiments in human perception, and are trying to teach us all something if we can set aside our 'a priori' assumptions and follow the data.

a reply to: JimOberg

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

Both cases imo have the potential for military explanations, blimp type craft. I think we were already operating the stealth fighter in 83, the military could probably pull this off. I do think the Belgium wave was alien, but the military solution cant be completely denied (even though both sets of officers in the Eupen sighting witnessed some kind of drone technology, but maybe we could even do that). I think you need to go further back so the classified projects aren't likely to explain an incident.

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.

Not finding the link, I will have more time tonight. One UFO researcher has also attempted to correlate Canadian sightings with to this.

a reply to: JimOberg

That's the Holy Grail.

But even then, do you see how there still could be good be 'faux-good' cases immune to explanation even though there IS an explanation, just one that human investigators are unable to find?

No one can claim be to be omniscient, but at some point for everyone, a certain amount of evidence would be good enough. As Gortex said, he will know it when he sees it.

The current log of UFO incidents has me convinced. I mentioned earlier Ravenna, Westall , and Madagascar as 3 I consider up at the top.

ZetaReticulian: 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?

Bad comparison. You cannot compare Atlantis with evidence pertaining to ufos. The ufo evidence is not in conflict with the hypothesis. There is virtually no evidence that supports the Atlantis hypothesis. You cannot isolate a single aspect of the phenomena and examine it divorced from the surrounding evidence.

originally posted by: JimOberg
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.

But Jim, the facts ARE in evidence. You cannot isolate these 1300 cases and analyse them outside the surrounding evidence for the UFO phenomena in general. The hypothesis that there are intelligent beings associated with these ufos is supported by a great deal of evidence. This does not mean the hypothesis is proved, it simply means that the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence. Remember, evidence is mute, it is just a bunch of facts that are interpreted.

Now, the statement I made about the Japanese cars was made with all this surrounding evidence in mind. If those 1300 cases constituted ALL the evidence we have to work with your point would be valid but, the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis and this fact justifies me in saying they may have non prosaic explanations.

You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings, associated with these craft, is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

Jim - more about evidence and hypothesis coming up so stay tuned...

originally posted by: EnPassant

You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

The root problem here is what you consider "evidence". Your bar is set so low that it includes lies, speculation, misperception and hearsay. Eliminate those and you are left with what? It ain't an alien, that's for sure.

Your hypothesis is consistent with your hypothesis. Nothing more.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

The root problem here is what you consider "evidence". Your bar is set so low that it includes lies, speculation, misperception and hearsay. Eliminate those and you are left with what? It ain't an alien, that's for sure.
Your hypothesis is consistent with your hypothesis. Nothing more.

'Includes' is the keyword here. Where there is speculation and misperception these elements are omitted from the body of evidence. Mr. Oberg has eliminated less than 1% of 1300 cases. Good work but hardly game changing.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

The root problem here is what you consider "evidence". Your bar is set so low that it includes lies, speculation, misperception and hearsay. Eliminate those and you are left with what? It ain't an alien, that's for sure.
Your hypothesis is consistent with your hypothesis. Nothing more.

'Includes' is the keyword here. Where there is speculation and misperception these elements are omitted from the body of evidence. Mr. Oberg has eliminated less than 1% of 1300 cases. Good work but hardly game changing.

Hypothesizing that those 1300 really are only prosaic but obscure causes, how many do you think would still resist discovery of the explanation?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
.....
we should be able find a set of criteria to set the really good cases apart.

That's the Holy Grail.
But even then, do you see how there still could be good be 'faux-good' cases immune to explanation even though there IS an explanation, just one that human investigators are unable to find?

If you flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time that does not mean the 6th will also be heads. You are coming dangerously close to assuming it will. Any assumptions you make should be made within the WHOLE body of evidence concerning ufology, not just sightings or photographs or some other aspect in isolation. This is the best way to develop a hypothesis.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

The root problem here is what you consider "evidence". Your bar is set so low that it includes lies, speculation, misperception and hearsay. Eliminate those and you are left with what? It ain't an alien, that's for sure.
Your hypothesis is consistent with your hypothesis. Nothing more.

'Includes' is the keyword here. Where there is speculation and misperception these elements are omitted from the body of evidence. Mr. Oberg has eliminated less than 1% of 1300 cases. Good work but hardly game changing.

Hypothesizing that those 1300 really are only prosaic but obscure causes, how many do you think would still resist discovery of the explanation?

Most of them I suspect. But here's another question. How many convincingly fit the hypothesis that there are craft with non earthly beings operating them? Roughly the same as the proportion of photographs of ufos that convincingly fit the hypothesis? I would think so.

In other words, the relevant proportions are not too far apart in both these aspects of the phenomenon. This is why I say each aspect of the phenomenon should not be estimated in isolation because each part supports the other parts.

a reply to: EnPassant

Bad comparison. You cannot compare Atlantis with evidence pertaining to ufos.

Wait, you were comparing where cars were made to identifying UFOs. So how do you determine the odds of the next car being from some unknown origin? Obviously Atlantis wasn't meant to be literal and has no bearing on the comparison.

The ufo evidence is not in conflict with the hypothesis. There is virtually no evidence that supports the Atlantis hypothesis.

The Atlantis hypothesis? Huh? We were talking about the Japanese made car hypothesis.

You cannot isolate a single aspect of the phenomena and examine it divorced from the surrounding evidence

But that is EXACTLY what you are doing when you dont compare the unknown cases to the knowns. Afterall, the knowns were once unknowns. When you discard 95% of the data and only look at the 5% of the data you are not looking at the surrounding evidence at all. The only difference between a known and an unknown is that one has an actual explanation. The knowns have ALL the same qualities as the unknowns and are indistinguishable.

The Hypothesis asserts that there are sentient beings associated with real craft in the sky. The Alternative Hypothesis says...well, what does it say? Let's have a look.

Let H be an advocate for the Hypothesis. Let AH be an advocate for the Alternative Hypothesis.

H: There are craft in the sky and they are behaving in a seemingly intelligent fashion. We don't

have craft like this on earth.

AH: (1) We do, they could be secret military craft.

H: But there are photos from the 20s and 30s showing these craft. We certainly did not have advanced craft like this in those days.

AH: (2) Hoaxery. Charlatans fooling people.

H: But people have seen these craft up close and have seen beings in them. Remember Jessie Rosenberg?

AH: (3) Hallucinations.

H: But there have been multiple witness sightings. Are you suggesting they all had bugs in their brains and all those bugs just happened to kick in at the same time?

AH: (4) Cultural conditioning. They saw stuff on tv and imagined they saw it for real.

H: I doubt it. There are many people in high places with integrity that have come out and said there is a cover up. They are hardly covering up hallucinations and cultural conditioning.

AH: (5) Anecdotal. I don't do the anecdotal thing.

H: But you are hardly arguing that ALL of these people are out of their minds or making things up? All of them?

AH: (6) Don't trust 'em.

I could go on but there are enough points here. Can you see what is happening here? There are 6 different answers to 6 different facets of the phenomenon. One answer fails as each new aspect of the phenomenon is discussed. If they keep failing like this they are not likely to be the right answers.

In other words the alternative hypothesis fragments, disintegrates, when it comes in contact with the evidence.

The Hypothesis itself does not do this. The hypothesis coherently explains ALL the evidence and does not fragment. This is exactly what scientists require of a proper hypothesis; an overarching theory that makes sense of the evidence and is even strengthened as new evidence comes on stream.

This is exactly what the hypothesis does. It explains the phenomenon and unites all its aspects into a coherent statement. Other hypothesis disintegrate immediately on contact with the evidence because each aspect of the evidence negates arguments that pertain to other parts of the evidence.

In fact, there is no real Alternative Hypothesis. It is more like a desperate scramble to explain things in a piecemeal way, but these 'explanations' fail each time a new aspect of the phenomena is presented. Cross referencing these different aspects of the phenomenon creates a powerful hypothesis and dispenses with the arguments against it. This is a properly scientific hypothesis.

Are you getting my drift Jim?

originally posted by: EnPassant
The Hypothesis asserts that there are sentient beings associated with real craft in the sky.

"Asserts" is the key word here.

Your "evidence" does not bear this out. Your "logic" remains flawed.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
But that is EXACTLY what you are doing when you dont compare the unknown cases to the knowns. Afterall, the knowns were once unknowns. When you discard 95% of the data and only look at the 5% of the data you are not looking at the surrounding evidence at all. The only difference between a known and an unknown is that one has an actual explanation. The knowns have ALL the same qualities as the unknowns and are indistinguishable.

Are you saying that the unknowns are to be compared with known cases? 10 are known to be ordinary events so the rest must be ordinary too? This is not logical. The fact is, we cannot determine what the unknowns are if we think only in terms of knowns and only by isolating these 1300 cases. It is pointless speculating what the unknowns are in these terms. What I am saying is that in view of the surrounding evidence and arguments pertaining to all aspects of the subject, we can make tacit assumptions as to what these proportions might be. I am justified in this because, for example, IF it were shown that some ufo photos are actual flying saucers we see that the people really were seeing flying saucers. And if they were we are justified in assuming some of these 1300 are also real craft. It is common sense to do this.

What this means is that evidence from one aspect of the phenomenon can be used to support other aspects of it, at least as far as the credibility of people's perception is concerned.

a reply to: EnPassant

H: There are craft in the sky and they are behaving in a seemingly intelligent fashion. We don't

have craft like this on earth.

AH: (1) We do, they could be secret military craft.

Wow. You remain clueless about the issues of MEASURING such performance parameters. No wonder you misunderstand other people's points of view. Let me spend some time on a longer response.

ADD -- Try this 1985 conference paper

www.debunker.com...

a reply to: EnPassant

If you flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time that does not mean the 6th will also be heads.

You do understand that there are only two known outcomes to a coin flip, right? A coin will come up heads or tails and, as far as I know, a coin has never come up aliens. But lets say there are 1300 that we couldn't quite make out exactly what side the coin came out on, you are essentially saying that those came out aliens.

a reply to: EnPassant

Are you saying that the unknowns are to be compared with known cases? 10 are known to be ordinary events so the rest must be ordinary too?

The knowns were once unknowns. Before they were knowns they were described exactly as your unknowns in every way. They were once part of your mountain of evidence only to be discarded when it didn't support your "hypothesis". So you moved to the next unknown. As far as the rest, they are unknown.

The fact is, we cannot determine what the unknowns are if we think only in terms of knowns and only by isolating these 1300 cases.

The fact is that you only have knowns to work with. Once aliens become a known, that's a different story.

It is pointless speculating what the unknowns are in these terms.

The unknowns remain unknown until they become knowns. That is not speculation. Asserting that they are aliens is asserting aliens. Speculating is really the only legitimate thing you can do. The odds are that they are explainable because we have a plethora of knowns that were once unknowns. We have zero know aliens to work with unless, of course, you assert their existence and that they pilot UFOs. That is circular reasoning which is why our discussions go in circles.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
You understand the relationship between evidence and hypothesis but for those who are not clear; A hypothesis is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. The hypothesis for sentient beings is consistent with the evidence. Evidence does not automatically support any hypothesis. It must be INTERPRETED if it is to have meaning.

The root problem here is what you consider "evidence". Your bar is set so low that it includes lies, speculation, misperception and hearsay. Eliminate those and you are left with what? It ain't an alien, that's for sure.
Your hypothesis is consistent with your hypothesis. Nothing more.

'Includes' is the keyword here. Where there is speculation and misperception these elements are omitted from the body of evidence. Mr. Oberg has eliminated less than 1% of 1300 cases. Good work but hardly game changing.

Hypothesizing that those 1300 really are only prosaic but obscure causes, how many do you think would still resist discovery of the explanation?

Most of them I suspect. But here's another question. How many convincingly fit the hypothesis that there are craft with non earthly beings operating them? Roughly the same as the proportion of photographs of ufos that convincingly fit the hypothesis? I would think so.

In other words, the relevant proportions are not too far apart in both these aspects of the phenomenon. This is why I say each aspect of the phenomenon should not be estimated in isolation because each part supports the other parts.

This is well stated and I want to grapple with it, but don't have the focus now. Pester me without mercy if I seem to drift off. Thanks for your stimulating replies.