What are UFOs?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby longhaircowboy » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:26 pm

But we already have a conundrum. Just how are we to determine what is or isn't an alien artifact. We don't know what ET is like or anything else about them so how do we know what to look for? What if by chance they happen to use the same metals that we do? There are more questions but I'll stop there.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

Memory...is an internal rumor.
George Santayana
User avatar
longhaircowboy
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:05 am
Location: Florida


Re: What are UFOs?

Postby mosfet » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:48 pm

An uncommon isotope, or element XXXX, or a technology so advanced all we can say is its so advanced? Or it says property of Starfleet, dna trace, etc. Your guess. For the sake of statistical argument it doesn't matter. Only trying to point out one is all it takes. Not a valid statistical argument in the common vernacular of scientific inquiry. But SIGNIFICANT, nontheless.

I spent 99% of my time collecting data (for my thesis) and doing precise lab work. Only 1% (of my time) on statistical analysis. (it did take several years)

But without the statistical analysis none of it would have been valid or amounted to a supportable conclusion.

Unfortunatly UFOlogy does not lend itself well to statistical analysis once the data is scrutinized. In some cases it does (very rare) but the conclusions inevitably lead to the conclusion that the observed or documented event cannot be explained by conventional knowledge. And while the hypothesis, the methods and materials and result and discussion and conclusion may all be valid and in accord with the scientific method the inevitable conclusion always is unexplainable. Might as well try to prove that the spin of the earth is slowing down (or speeding up) because a significant number of cockroaches on the earth all randomly move left at the same time.


Also and furthermore, I’m always hesitant to accept that some figure say 1% or 2% of the sightings investigated cannot be explained. (although intuitively I could accept that) I have to ask myself “what does that really mean”? To what extent did the investigator and to what peer review, and to what standard did such and such an investigation proceed? In chemistry there is STANDARD METHODS, tells you how to conduct atomic absorption spectrometry, wet chemistry, gas chromatography, etc, no such standard for ufology. I know mufon has a manual, but I ask are there controls for bias, etc. Any quality control? I developed some programs with self regulating quality controls in database management for the government. These controls would identify bias with set limits and provide marked results both with and without bias. Ufology?


I see no way to structure a UFO database because it seems that there is no standard, too much subjective interpretation by both investigator, and witnesses, etc. Making any statistical interpretation at best supercificial, but perhaps interesting.

I could go on, but it would only serve to further the frustration and incongruity permeating the ufo community and solutions I can not even begin to imagine much less formulate.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:34 am

I really started to hate the term ufo during my time as a member of ats because of the way that delusional believers would try to use it as a way to prove a point or prove to themselves and others that alien visitation is real.

here is an example of what i mean:

believer posts thread with a picture of a light in the sky (usually plane/lantern etc)with extremely misleading title (zomg super duper proof of ufos)

sceptic) looks like a chinese lantern to me!.

believer) prove its a chinese lantern?.

sceptic) well i cant actually prove its a lantern because i have no flying time machine to take you back and bang your head on it!.

believer) so then if you cant prove its a lantern then its a ufo?. (meaning alien spaceship).

sceptic) well yes, by definition it is a ufo but that doesn't make it alien, so you prove its alien?.

believer) i never said it was alien (knowing full well thats what he meant) so my point stands, its proof of ufos!.

i hope you get my point, the term is being misused to automatically mean alien spaceship but then used as a get out clause by the very same people.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby chrLz » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:06 am

longhaircowboy wrote:.. in my case I only have 2 as yet explained sightings and thats out of hundreds that I've personally investigated...


Umm, can we help? :D

Or are these just some of the well known ones that are covered elsewhere... (Having said that, I'd havta be honest and say I've not seen anything that I would regard as having no possible explanation..)
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby ryguy » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm

mosfet wrote:The FACT remains UFOs cannot be predicted, much less reproduced, much less be subjected to the scientific method, much less statistically analyzed. No matter how much data mufon or anyone else purports to acquire, such data is inherently FLAWED, in other words not suitable for statistical analyses to any degree of confidence. We are left with subjective objectivity.
.


Could you define subjective objectivity for me? That's an interesting term.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby ryguy » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:25 pm

mosfet wrote:I see no way to structure a UFO database because it seems that there is no standard, too much subjective interpretation by both investigator, and witnesses, etc. Making any statistical interpretation at best supercificial, but perhaps interesting.

I could go on, but it would only serve to further the frustration and incongruity permeating the ufo community and solutions I can not even begin to imagine much less formulate.


Are you saying you don't believe the scientific method can be used to explore "black-box" type phenomenon because so many things about the observations (and hypothesis about what's going on inside) are subjective? Or are you only saying that statistics can't be used? In the first case I disagree, but in the second you probably have a good argument. Psychic research is an excellent example of statistics turned on its head to "prove" a phenomenon.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: What are UFOs?

Postby Buckwild » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Hi AD & all,

I say that because the nature of the “evidence” used by ETH proponents is highly ambiguous and I find the post hoc rationalizations for this incredibly disingenuous.


It is not only ambiguous, it is irrelevant to start with. The connections that are made with the subject at issue (i.e : ETH) are directed by an agenda, which leads to logical fallacies, etc...

As you appear to agree, a properly designed (rigorous) experiment could easily (unambiguously) settle the question once and for all “Are ETs flying around in our atmosphere in UFOs?” for those in doubt.


I would not say that I agree nor disagree, unless ET lands/crashs/gets shot down or maybe contact us. Instead, I just doubt a little that scientifical proof would be unambiguous because S.Stride said that scientificaly acceptable proof of robotic probe technology would depend on using statistical methods on a large set of data. This might lead to several problems, (just to name a few) such as badly designed studies as opposed to methodologically sound studies or bad protocoles to gather data via the instrumental platforms in use and last but not least, agenda-driven bias. S.Stride talked about using Meta-analysis and these are just some of the "side effects" that could be encountered.

Now, it might not be the case, this is why I doubt as opposed to I know for a fact or I believe. Just speculating on this one. Another thing is, what might look like unambiguous data to researchers might look ambiguous for some/part of the public and the opposite might be possible as well. I do believe this time that it is a very complex subject (SETV Research) and my own little skepticism stops me from coming to conclusions beforehand on this specific subject.

Would the evidence(s) or scientifical proof that we are monitored by some ETI be unambiguous ? Well, it better be in order to be confirmed & approved by the worldwide scientific community and in that sense, I agree with you.

Regarding 1991VG, thanks for the links, too bad I cannot read the Tancredi, G., Brasser, R., Wiegert, P's papers. Did D.Steel submit any replies ? From what I know, 1991VG will be back in our backyard in 2017. Further remote observations might or might not lead to a rigorous & conclusive identification. We'll see...

Well, first of all, it should be noted the AF stopped using that silly UFOBject acronym and revised that naïve definition of a UFO…


I don't understand why you used the word "silly" ? Even If I agree with you that human testimonies are unreliable. Do you think it is/was silly because human testimonies are unreliable so that definition was irrelevant/inappropriate ?

Regarding the BB link you posted, I do not trust that line for a simple reason :

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;


UFO cases that could have affected national security were not part of the BB system if this document is authentic :
http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/bolender2_3.htm

It seems what you want UFOs to be is EFOs (Extraordinary Flying Objects) but why assume ET craft would necessarily exhibit extraordinary performance or aerodynamic characteristics in our atmosphere?

[the law of physics don’t change just because you’re from another planet]


I only assume that if any ETI can make it here, they could (not they would) exhibit extraordinary performances compared to our performances (to date). That does not mean breaking the laws of physics but advanced tech' and propulsion systems. This is why I said that I would want them to fit/match the UFOB description as far as unique performances and aerodynamical considerations to be worth of interest (besides spectroscopic analysis) with a limited & low cost instrumental platform. In other words, some sort of filter to put candidates on the side.

I would say that this is only one small step in the process of constructing "objects of research" in regards to my agenda/project.


Cheers and thx for your interesting post & futur answer.
Buck the eternal unsatisfied :wink:
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests

cron