Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

[Agatha]

Thanks for pointing out the typo ... it's fixed now ... but now your you're doing the same thing. I've been through multiple definitions of the null hypothesis and they all describe the same process ... that is unless you reduce it to a mere convenience term. But even then it implies that a particular line of investigation should be used based on some assumption.

FTFY. If you are going to pick up on typos, you need to be very careful.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of controlled conditions, such an assumption must be based, at least in part, on some personal bias.

Consequently it makes more sense to simply examine the information with no opinion whatsoever and follow the evidence where it leads ... no null hypothesis is necessary.

j.r.

No bias is inherent in the null hypothesis, it's a statement of what you are attempting to falsify. Having a null hypothesis of "aliens are not visiting the earth" makes no statement about whether aliens exist, whether they are extra-solar, or whether their ships are painted blue or green; it's just the baseline against which you are testing your data.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thanks for pointing out the typo ... it's fixed now ... but now your doing the same thing.

LOL.

I've been through multiple definitions of the null hypothesis and they all describe the same process ... that is unless you reduce it to a mere convenience term. But even then it implies that a particular line of investigation should be used based on some assumption. Unfortunately, because of the lack of controlled conditions, such an assumption must be based, at least in part, on some personal bias.

Nope. What do you think the null hypothesis should be in the case of alien abduction? Are you sticking with the unfalsifiable one you told us earlier?

Consequently it makes more sense to simply examine the information with no opinion whatsoever and follow the evidence where it leads ... no null hypothesis is necessary.

j.r.

But you already had an opinion. It was, unfortunately, not falsifiable. I'd suggest changing to one which is falsifiable such as, "No stories of alien abduction are the result of ET actually abducting people."

Do you see how that one is falsifiable, by having just one proven case?

 

[ufology]

FTFY. If you are going to pick up on typos, you need to be very careful.

No bias is inherent in the null hypothesis, it's a statement of what you are attempting to falsify. Having a null hypothesis of "aliens are not visiting the earth" makes no statement about whether aliens exist, whether they are extra-solar, or whether their ships are painted blue or green; it's just the baseline against which you are testing your data.

Hey I'm OK with people pointing out my typos. I consider it a favor.

Let me explain in a little more detail. We may be construing terms in different contexts. Let's set the concept of "personal" bias aside. The point is that some possible conclusion has already been decided upon without any reference to a controlled experimental situation.

For example, if you check out the full Wikipedia article, consider the example they use ( a coin toss ). In such a situation there is no bias, or at least the bias is eliminated to a reasonable level. It is safe, given two choices, heads or tails, that the coin will land one way or the other about 50% of the time. Similarly in medical case studies it is used in what they call a "double blind test" to eliminate bias.

In the case of a UFO sighting however ( and other transient phenomena ), the conditions are uncertain and non-repeatable. There is no empirically measurable alternate from which to accurately guage probabilities based on the null hypothesis ... so one must be fabricated based on a non-quantified assumption ... essentially a preconceived opinion, hence some sort of bias. The only good a null hypothesis is in these situations is to act as a convenience term that sounds scientific, but isn't.

As stated before, it makes more sense in these types of cases to look at the information first without any preconceived opinion, and follow the evidence where it leads based on investigation.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

As stated before, it makes more sense in these types of cases to look at the information first without any preconceived opinion, and follow the evidence where it leads based on investigation.

j.r.

Right then. Let's see all your alien abduction evidence and we'll see where it leads.

No campfire stories.

 

[Agatha]

As stated before, it makes more sense in these types of cases to look at the information first without any preconceived opinion, and follow the evidence where it leads based on investigation.

j.r.

OK, when do you plan to start? You'll need to discard your preconceived opinion that aliens exist, though....

 

[Audible Click]

Hey I'm OK with people pointing out my typos. I consider it a favor.

Let me explain in a little more detail. We may be construing terms in different contexts. Let's set the concept of "personal" bias aside. The point is that some possible conclusion has already been decided upon without any reference to a controlled experimental situation. For example, if you check out the full Wikipedia article, consider the example they use ( a coin toss ). In such a situation there is no bias, or at least the bias is eliminated to a reasonable level. It is safe, given two choices, heads or tails, that the coin will land one way or the other about 50% of the time. Similarly in medical case studies it is used in what they call a "double blind test" to eliminate bias.

In the case of a UFO sighting however ( and other transient phenomena ), the conditions are uncertain and non-repeatable. There is no empirically measurable alternate from which to accurately guage probabilities based on the null hypothesis ... so one must be fabricated based on a non-quantified assumption ... essentially a preconceived opinion, hence some sort of bias. The only good a null hypothesis is in these situations is to act as a convenience term that sounds scientific, but isn't.

As stated before, it makes more sense in these types of cases to look at the information first without any preconceived opinion, and follow the evidence where it leads based on investigation.
j.r.

We've done that and guess what? We're still skeptical of the claims you and other "ufologists" make.

 

[ufology]

We've done that and guess what? We're still skeptical of the claims you and other "ufologists" make.

That's good. I wouldn't want it any other way. I respect genuine constructive skepticism. It's when it degenerates into epithets and character assasination that I start to take offence.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

That's good. I wouldn't want it any other way. I respect genuine constructive skepticism. It's when it degenerates into epithets and character assasination that I start to take offence.

j.r.

Ok, ufologist, I'm all for that. As Agatha and Akhenaten say, let's have your most credible alien abduction story. Your gold standard, as it were, and we'll look at it with no preconceived notions, but always ascribing to the perfectly reasonable standpoint that ECREE.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ok, ufologist, I'm all for that. As Agatha and Akhenaten say, let's have your most credible alien abduction story. Your gold standard, as it were, and we'll look at it with no preconceived notions, but always ascribing to the perfectly reasonable standpoint that ECREE.

It's gone a bit quiet in here. I wonder if he's been abducted.

 

[Correa Neto]

Can I help them to present the "most credible abduction story"? Sex abudctors apart, UFOlogists can present...

Black souless aliens with glowing red eyes

Jetsons-like abuctor robots

Rigid robot-like abductors with pointed noses and ears, no eyes

The Barney and Betty Hill aliens whose descriptions change with time and UFOlogists

Mantis-type aliens

Nordic-type aliens

Take your pick and join the space opera, bro...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey I'm OK with people pointing out my typos. I consider it a favor.

Let me explain in a little more detail. We may be construing terms in different contexts. Let's set the concept of "personal" bias aside. The point is that some possible conclusion has already been decided upon without any reference to a controlled experimental situation.

For example, if you check out the full Wikipedia article, consider the example they use ( a coin toss ). In such a situation there is no bias, or at least the bias is eliminated to a reasonable level. It is safe, given two choices, heads or tails, that the coin will land one way or the other about 50% of the time. Similarly in medical case studies it is used in what they call a "double blind test" to eliminate bias.

In the case of a UFO sighting however ( and other transient phenomena ), the conditions are uncertain and non-repeatable. There is no empirically measurable alternate from which to accurately guage probabilities based on the null hypothesis ... so one must be fabricated based on a non-quantified assumption ... essentially a preconceived opinion, hence some sort of bias. The only good a null hypothesis is in these situations is to act as a convenience term that sounds scientific, but isn't.

As stated before, it makes more sense in these types of cases to look at the information first without any preconceived opinion, and follow the evidence where it leads based on investigation.

j.r.

In a coin toss, we know that both heads and tails exist. You've made an invalid analogy. You seem to be saying that it is equally probable that aliens have abducted people as that they haven't, even though aliens have never been known to exist here on earth.

A better analogy to a coin toss would be tossing a nickel and have it turn into a penny.

 

[ufology]

Ok, ufologist, I'm all for that. As Agatha and Akhenaten say, let's have your most credible alien abduction story. Your gold standard, as it were, and we'll look at it with no preconceived notions, but always ascribing to the perfectly reasonable standpoint that ECREE.

Abductions eh ... I have a whole different credibility scale for those claims. I'm not saying that something strange isn't going on, but what it is and whether or not it's alien entities ... call it my own bias if you want, but even with all the wierdness I've experienced ... let's just say, I'm more skeptical than you think.

I read the abduction stuff because it's part of ufolore. Guys like Mack are especially interesting to read ... but "gold standard of alien abduction"? For the sake of discussion, I'll play along and propose the Frederick Vanteich case ... presumed by some UFO researchers to have been abducted along with his aircraft and never returned. Here's the dramatization video for background:





There is of course more out there on the case and most of the "well versed" skeptics here will already be familiar with it, but I look forward you your comments.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Abductions eh ... I have a whole different credibility scale for those claims. I'm not saying that something strange isn't going on, but what it is and whether or not it's alien entities ... call it my own bias if you want, but even with all the wierdness I've experienced ... let's just say, I'm more skeptical than you think.

Why did you resurrect this dormant thread?

The topic is "Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'" and the closest you've come to addressing that topic in any way has been to post a single YouTube of a case from 33 years ago. Apart from that all you've done is attempt to lecture people with your misunderstood concept of the null hypothesis.

Why?

 

[Access Denied]

..."gold standard of alien abduction"? For the sake of discussion, I'll play along and propose the Frederick Vanteich case ... presumed by some UFO researchers to have been abducted along with his aircraft and never returned.

It's Valentich. My comments inserted in the text below are from RU and reposted here for convenience in reference to this....

Final report by New Zealand civil aviation investigators on the disappearance of Frederick Valentich and his aircraft
http://www.ufoera.com/articles/fina...aviation-investigators-on-the_1190310637.html

In Issue #30 of the 'Fortean Times', British Ufologist Nigel Watson reviewed the disappearance of Australian pilot Frederick Valentich on the night of October 21, 1978, while flying over Bass Strait.

Watson raised a number of points that are worth repeating and investigating:

A. Frederick filed only a one-way flight plan to King Island although he had indicated his intention to return the same evening.

B. He made no arrangements for the landing lights at King Island to be turned on.

C. Police found no one who had arranged to sell crayfish to Frederick - the stated intention for his flight.

D. The aircraft's long range fuel tank was filled to its 303 litre capacity. [~10 times more than he needed to get where he was allegedly going –AD]

E. Cape Otway lighthouse keepers and Bass Strait fishermen did not report seeing any light aircraft in the vicinity.

F. Despite ideal conditions, at no time was the aircraft [Valentich's] plotted on radar.

G. Melbourne Police received reports of a light aircraft making a mysterious landing not far from Cape Otway at the same time as Valentich's disappearance.

H. Although Bass Strait - and later Cape Otway and King Island – were searched for signs of wreckage, nothing was found.

I. He had $300 cash on his person. (A lot of money in '78)

J. He arranged to meet his girlfriend, Ms Rushton on the same evening at 7.30pm - a date he couldn't have possibly kept. [debunked –AD]

K. Frederick's father claimed that, 8 or 10 months before his "disappearance" 'My son told me he had seen a large brilliantly lit object in the western sky which was flying at a tremendous speed from south to north'. His father also stated that Frederick firmly believed in the existence of UFO's. Yet no mention was made of a UFO during his last radio communication.

[“Mrs Valentich said that Freddie had told her and her husband that during his time as an Air Training Corps cadet at Sale RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) Base, he had seen classified material which had confirmed his earlier beliefs about UFOs.” –AD]

L. On the tape recording of the last conversation with the young pilot, there was no hint of panic in his voice. [and oddly used the wrong call sign a lot -AD]

Several possibilities here, none that require invoking aliens to explain it that I can see.

 

[ufology]

It's Valentich. My comments inserted in the text below are from RU and reposted here for convenience in reference to this....

Final report by New Zealand civil aviation investigators on the disappearance of Frederick Valentich and his aircraft
http://www.ufoera.com/articles/fina...aviation-investigators-on-the_1190310637.html


Several possibilities here, none that require invoking aliens to explain it that I can see.

Ya ... there are innuendos that leave in or add on all kinds of stuff. The final report rules out the oil slick and gives possible reasons to rule out the innuendos, and I can think of a few myself. The radar is probably the oddest thing. One would think that since he was airborne the radar should have picked him up, especially since there was the so-called anomalous propogation.

If he faked his dissappearance and it was reported as suggested ( landed at some other location ), where's the airplane? The cash he had with him isn't confirmed because he was never found, so that's just a rumor. But even if it wasn't, he may have had it to purchase the seafood he was on the delivery trip for. If he just wanted to disappear, why bother alerting people to search for him with a faked radio call? Why not just fly off and never be found? The faked disappearance doesn't add up.

j.r.

 

[Aepervius]

No but suicide sound like a real hypotheses.

 

[John Albert]

Or maybe he just lost his heading and crashed into the ocean. That's been known to happen to airplanes occasionally.

Sounds a whole lot more plausible than "OMG Aliens did it!"

 

[Akhenaten]

Or maybe he just lost his heading and crashed into the ocean. That's been known to happen to airplanes occasionally.


Sounds a whole lot more plausible than "OMG Aliens did it!"

And you know what's more common out in Bass Strait than UFOs?

Squid fishing boats and oil wells.

 

[John Albert]

OMG!!! BP did it!

 

[Correa Neto]

And you know what's more common out in Bass Strait than UFOs?

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/BassStrait.jpg[/qimg]​

Squid fishing boats and oil wells.

Nice fishes out there!