THIS is what you said, OP:
I keep hearing this repeated over and over again and I want to know where this numbers come from. In my experience it's more like 95% can't
Was there a Scientific study that reached this number and how did the study reach this number?
I have been looking in these areas for close to 20 years and I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%. Since I've been on ATS, I haven't seen
close to 50% of sighting, close encounters or abduction cases explained.
It's pretty apparent. You don't need to explain it. You said you "keep hearing over and over again" that 95% CAN be explained (from your title.
Then you said, "In my experience it's more like 95% can't be explained." After saying you "keep hearing this repeated over and over again" you
then say, "I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%."
So WHICH is it, OP? Have you heard it "over and over" or have you "never seen an explanation rate of 95%"? You are contradicting yourself.
That's it, and you provide no sources for either figure. You don't like the 95% figure that says they CAN be explained, complaining that you want to
know where the figures come from, then you turn right around and claim "in your experience it's more like 95% can't be explained" and provide no
source for YOUR figure. Tell me, please, why we should reject the first 95% figure you don't like, but accept the 95% figure that you just made up
from "your own experience."
I then proceeded to suggest why this was so, showing many examples and citing my own statistics while referring you to other sources. You then
complained that I used "too many words," and complained further that I should accept "stories told to others" as evidence for, um, er, something,
citing Edgar Mitchell as an example....
...which is a truly bad example. Why? because Mitchell never saw anything. He was TOLD stories by others. WHICH others? No one knows because they
remain nameless and faceless, but we're supposed to accept this because, after all, Edgar Mitchell is a famous astronaut, therefore whatever he says
must be good. This, as I stated previously, is an "argument from authority" that is invalid.
Now, if Mitchell were placed on a witness stand in a court of law, do you think his testimony would be considered valid because, after all, he is a
famous astronaut and walked on the Moon? The answer is, "NO!" because his testimony is "hearsay." Since you have ignored this small fact, let me
explain it to you. "Hearsay" is when someone repeats what they have been told by someone else, but not something that they witnessed themselves. And
this sort of second-party testimony is INADMISSABLE as evidence.
I see no reason why we should loosen the laws of evidence for this phenomenon. If we do so, then we must accept hearsay testimony from anyone who
heard from a guy (who heard from a guy who heard from a guy) that he saw aliens land, or whatever. It's not evidence we can accept, and it certainly
does nothing to bolster your non-existent case.
Your case is non-existent primarily because you just made stuff up. You made up the 95% figure on both sides of the equation, then proceeded to argue
the case. It's a straw man argument. You INVENTED the figure to argue against. That, just like the argument from authority, is invalid.
If you think "people" constantly say "95% of the cases are explainable" then please show where people have consistently said that. Who was it?
Where did they say it? Show your sources.
You have not done that.
If you think based on your "personal experience" that "95% of the cases have NOT been explained," then please show where you get that figure. What
cases have you examined? What "personal experience" are you claiming here? How did you arrive at the 95% figure? Show your sources.
You have not done that.
So, once again, you don't have a case. Calling me names or accusing me of using "too many words" is not going to change that. I'm sorry to have
provided evidence to show my case, something you have yet to do. As for using "too many words" I'm reminded of the King of Austria who accused
Mozart of using "too many notes."
Meanwhile, unless you can come up with better arguments for whatever it is you are trying to say, I wouldn't expect overwhelming applause for your