I believe use of the null hypothesis shows that the ET hypothesis is a valid explanation for some U.F.O.'s. First off, the problem in this area is
that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach. They don't use any distinctions when dealing with U.F.O.'s and this is illogical.
I believe you are confusing logic with facts. "Logic" is a method, a kind of protocol for argument, but it isn't foolproof. For example, using
symbolic logic you can prove "A" or "not-A" depending on which way you go. When I pointed out an example to my logic teacher, he said that pointing it
out with a tight apologetic smile that I wasn't being "being fair."
(1.) First we have to ask is there any evidence that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence.
and I have seen 2 U.F.O.'s up close that looked to be controlled by intelligence as they hovered and one was flying against a strong
(2.) Another thing we need to prove is if there's a possibility that Aliens exist or is just the something thought up by blind believers. Is
there anything in science that says Aliens most likely exist. The answer here is yes. You have people like Stephen Hawking, Dr. Michio Kaku and Edgar
Mitchell saying Aliens exist. This is based on things like exoplanets, extremophiles and access to Government personal that the average person doesn't
have access to in the case of Edgar Mitchell.
SO? This isn't proof; it's probability. Edgar Mitchell didn't see anything. His is hearsay non-admissible evidence. You're actually using faulty logic
here in an "appeal to authority." Kaku, Hawking, and Mitchell say aliens exist, and they are bright guys, THEREFORE they do? No. Sorry. That isn't
(3.) The next question is how can they reach us? Again, this is something easy to prove. Just by accepting Aliens exist you can't turn around
and limit the science and technology of these civilizations based on our current understanding. We're even looking into things like Warp Drive or
other propulsion systems. How do we know these Aliens aren't closer to us than we think? There could also be intelligent lifeforms that have yet to
You're mixing your metaphors here. Are you trying to prove aliens can reach us or are you trying to prove there are undiscovered life forms here?
Ignorance of advanced technology does not prove it exists. If there are undiscovered lifeforms "here" then they aren't extra-terrestrial, are they?
Warp Drive is science fiction.
(4.) The next question is, where's the evidence that any of these U.F.O.'s contain Aliens. You have close encounters, alien abductions, trace
evidence, hypnosis (which is used by Police and is called Forensic Hypnosis), mass sightings and more.
"Close encounters" includes just seeing a light in the sky. Alien abductions is highly suspect. Define "trace evidence." Hypnosis. once again, a can
of worms. Mass sightings of a UFO does not prove aliens. Neither does "and more."
(5.) In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It's false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily
be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.'s are controlled by an
extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence.
You've proved no such thing. In fact, you have completely ignored what you are trying to prove: that "extraterrestrials control UFOs" You flit back
and forth between "UFOs are controlled by intelligence" and "UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" and "UFOs are controlled by lifeforms "closer
to us" that we have not discovered. They aren't the same thing. You've created a moving target here.
There is no doubt in my mind that some UFOs are controlled by intelligence. I'll give you that much, but from then on you are speculating. That alien
life probably exists is also, I think, very more likely than not. But you can't get "them" "here" just by saying we may not understand advanced
technology. You can use your "logic" to prove nearly ANYTHING that way just by proclaiming we are ignorant. You could just as well say, "Dinosaurs
still exist but we haven't seen them because they live in the forest or something." What you are saying is, "We are ignorant of advanced technology,
therefore the aliens must have it." That is not in any sense logical.
Your local evidence is also extremely suspect. You toss them off as if they were one-liners. Mass sightings do not prove aliens. Close encounters do
not prove aliens. Hypnosis (What a can of worms! ask David Jacobs!) does not prove aliens. Abductions? Are you sure they are real? What if they are
staged? You're not even addressing alternatives, then throwing on "trace evidence" as if it were equal to the others.
1.) Are some UFOs controlled by intelligence? Answer: Yes.
2.) Is there life elsewhere? Answer: It's very likely; effectively, Yes.
3.) Have aliens reached us? Answer: We don't actually know. According to today's science: No.
4.) Do we have local evidence? Answer: It's anecdotal and usually pretty flaky, unfortunately.
5.) Are UFOs controlled by aliens? Answer: We don't know.
Look, it may very well be true that some UFOs are controlled by your "aliens." It's possible. But your game of logic here has not proven it and is
full of holes. You haven't proven "aliens are from another planet" here at all. Your #1 and #2 are easy and really not in dispute. Your #3 is suspect
in the sense that you have to get past Einstein and relativity to say "Yes" here and you can't do that without something other than ignorance as a
point in your favor. Science fiction warp drives are no substitute and are not at all logical. But even if you accept #3 on faith (and that's what it
is: Faith, not science) Your #4 is a mess and needs serious work. Most of your "evidence" here is highly suspect. There is so much fraud here that it
is difficult to separate truth from fiction. Your logical leap is in #5. Everything prior could be a result of military projects, not aliens. There is
no way to tell the difference based on logic alone.
edit on 4/7/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)