It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


If U.F.O.'s have crashed in the past what does that have to do with them evading capture and causing nuclear sites to malfunction?

You said:


Why would Aliens be caught or easily evade capture when they possess the technology to malfunction nuclear sites and evade our planes?

When alien things crash, they leave behind dead aliens and broken alien technology. Where is it?.



This actually gives more support to the ET hypothesis because we're dealing with technology and technology isn't perfect. Things crash

So you are saying aliens can easily evade planes, disable nuclear sites because the possess advanced technology and they crash because "Things crash". So why cant we capture a dead alien on a broken spaceship?


The same way that crop circles created by aliens was falsified by showing humans can create very intricate patterns.

People can hallucinate UFOs and aliens. That can be demonstrated pretty easily. Does that then falsify UFOs and aliens?
So we can discuss crop circles now? How are crop circles relevant to UFOs and Bigfoot is not?




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


So you are saying aliens can easily evade planes, disable nuclear sites because the possess advanced technology and they crash because "Things crash". So why cant we capture a dead alien on a broken spaceship?


There have been reports that we have. I'm not surprised by these reports at all.

Again, this is about the ET hypothesis being falsified.

I don't compare the evidence for crop circles being created by aliens to the ET hypothesis. I just bring it up to show the ET hypothesis can be falsified in the same way that crop circles created by aliens was falsified by refuting the evidence and showing humans can create these intricate patterns.

Blind debunkers bring up bigfoot because they want to lump all of these things together like the ET hypothesis, bigfoot and now unicorns creating rainbows. This is just nonsense.

Apples&Oranges.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
People can hallucinate UFOs and aliens. That can be demonstrated pretty easily. Does that then falsify UFOs and aliens?
So we can discuss crop circles now? How are crop circles relevant to UFOs and Bigfoot is not?


For this badly stated ET "hypothesis," one has to show every UFO has no ET origin to show it is a logically false claim. Even if only one claim remains unknown regardless of reason, the "hypothesis" (in quotes because it isn't worth pursuing) survives because 1 is equivalent to some. Scientific it is not, by any remote stretch of the imagination.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, this is about the ET hypothesis being falsified.

Then why do you ignore the relevant posts and keep bringing up Bigfoot and crop circles?
You said:

The same way that crop circles created by aliens was falsified by showing humans can create very intricate patterns.

I said:


People can hallucinate UFOs and aliens. That can be demonstrated pretty easily. Does that then falsify UFOs and aliens?


And you replied:

Again, this is about the ET hypothesis being falsified.

I don't compare the evidence for crop circles being created by aliens to the ET hypothesis. I just bring it up to show the ET hypothesis can be falsified in the same way that crop circles created by aliens was falsified by refuting the evidence and showing humans can create these intricate patterns.

????
"Humans can create crop circles" falsifies crop circles being created by aliens. OK.

If I can demonstrate that humans can hallucinate aliens and UFOs pretty readily with every bit of detail that is reported in your links does that falsify UFOs? Purely hypothetical. If I could demonstrate that some multiple witness reports with radar returns could be explained and even demonstrated to be nothing more than human misperception along with confabulation and false memory, would that falsify UFOs being alien? Purely hypothetical.

Seems like it would because some humans making intricate patterns in crops falsifies ALL crop circles being made by aliens. that's just nonsense.

you said:

For instance, if over the next 50 years we test every comet that flies by earth for an icy discharge and we don't find an icy discharge then the theory would be falsified.


I said:


How do you test UFOs for aliens? For the last 50 years, we didn't find any aliens flying UFOs. Does that mean the theory is falsified? What are you suggesting with your comment about comets? How is that relevant to aliens while Bigfoot is not?


you replied:




But had this to say:

Blind debunkers bring up bigfoot because they want to lump all of these things together like the ET hypothesis, bigfoot and now unicorns creating rainbows.


How do you test UFOs for aliens?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 



For this badly stated ET "hypothesis," one has to show every UFO has no ET origin to show it is a logically false claim. Even if only one claim remains unknown regardless of reason, the "hypothesis" (in quotes because it isn't worth pursuing) survives because 1 is equivalent to some. Scientific it is not, by any remote stretch of the imagination.

I get that (along with most people responding). The thought process that is being displayed is a little "odd". There seems to be some psychological defenses around the "ET Hypothesis". Not science. More like an obsessive belief.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsIsRed
 


What's so tall about the story?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I totally agree. The arguments seem to be partially accepted until they are applied to the "ET Hypothesis" eg: crop circles were easy to show were human.... There doesn't seem to be a concept of testability with data either. It's all based on sweeping statements more reminiscent of weak philosophical arguments disguised as logic but resulting in a spaghetti monster of somewhat conflicting comments.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Just more silliness. You said:


"Humans can create crop circles" falsifies crop circles being created by aliens. OK.


Yes it does. Sadly, you don't understand how science works. It's not the job of Science to prove the alternative hypothesis. In order to show crop circles are made by aliens you would have to give evidence that there's crop circles that can't be made by humans. I haven't seen that evidence, maybe you have. It's a high bar. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true. It's up to proponents of the alternative hypothesis to refute the null hypothesis.

Like I said, you need to read up on how science works.

You then said:


If I can demonstrate that humans can hallucinate aliens and UFOs pretty readily with every bit of detail that is reported in your links does that falsify UFOs? Purely hypothetical. If I could demonstrate that some multiple witness reports with radar returns could be explained and even demonstrated to be nothing more than human misperception along with confabulation and false memory, would that falsify UFOs being alien? Purely hypothetical.

Seems like it would because some humans making intricate patterns in crops falsifies ALL crop circles being made by aliens. that's just nonsense.


This is just a hodge podge of nonsense.

You're not giving me a hypothetical, this is just fantasy. Of course it can't falsify them. We have images, pictures, trace and physical evidence. Again, that's not a hypothetical, that's a fantasy.

The way you falsify the ET hypothesis is show us another explanation for this:

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...





It's simple. When you look at crop circles, the fact that humans can make these intricate patterns reduces the need to invoke aliens. When I see a crop circle, I don't ask if aliens did it, I ask how many people would it take to do that. There's no need to invoke aliens because the evidence supports humans making these intricate patterns.

U.F.O.'s exist and they can't be explained. The ET hypothesis seeks to explain the evidence that has accumulated over the years. The fact is you or others can't refute the evidence.

If blind debunkers had an alternative explanation then there would be no need to invoke the ET hypothesis. When I say an alternative explanation I don't mean the debunking of a case or two. I mean an alternative explanation that will explain the mountains of evidence that keeps growing. With crop circles you have an alternative explanation and there's no need to invoke aliens unless you show evidence of crop circles that can't be made by humans.

There would be no need for the ET hypothesis if blind debunkers had an alternative explanation for the evidence use to build the ET hypothesis. The fact is they don't and this is why we have U.F.O.'s.

Blind debunkers don't have the evidence that reduces the alien and U.F.O. folder to the alien fantasy folder. The evidence that supports the ET hypothesis gets stronger year after year.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

edit on 13-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)


deleted post
edit on 13-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by radkrish
 


Never heard of a rainbow that travels hundreds of miles in the sky..making gravity defying stunts.

Never heard of a UFO that did "stunts". Nor one that made pretty colors in the sky that could be photographed and studied.


Again, there are plenty of witness testimonies who tell that they do make impossible turns, disappears in a fraction of a second..so and so. Now, don't say that they are all liars seeking attention.


The question is How do you test a UFO for alien-ness or even intelligence?


I don't know why this is getting repetitive. Do you mean crafts that come and go, disappear, travel fast and comes to a sudden halt are not under intelligent control? Or they don't posses intelligence themselves?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 




I don't know why this is getting repetitive. Do you mean crafts that come and go, disappear, travel fast and comes to a sudden halt are not under intelligent control? Or they don't posses intelligence themselves?

Why ET?

But, more on topic. How is it possible to say that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials?"


edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


It was a pretty simple question that you want to avoid answering. I get it now. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by radkrish
 




I don't know why this is getting repetitive. Do you mean crafts that come and go, disappear, travel fast and comes to a sudden halt are not under intelligent control? Or they don't posses intelligence themselves?

Why ET?

But, more on topic. How is it possible to say that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials?"


edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Why E.T? Because it a perfectly plausible and viable answer.

If not what are they? Blimps and swamp gas doing a 100m dash?

Or you mean they are controlled by humans?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Asked and answered.

Sorry you can't refute simple logic.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

radkrish

Phage
reply to post by radkrish
 




I don't know why this is getting repetitive. Do you mean crafts that come and go, disappear, travel fast and comes to a sudden halt are not under intelligent control? Or they don't posses intelligence themselves?

Why ET?

But, more on topic. How is it possible to say that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials?"


edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Why E.T? Because it a perfectly plausible and viable answer.

If not what are they? Blimps and swamp gas doing a 100m dash?

Or you mean they are controlled by humans?



Great answer.

The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

This doesn't mean there can't be other explanations but there has been none that fit the data like the ET hypothesis.

This is why blind debunkers run from the evidence like the plague and they want to talk about unicorns creating rainbows.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

radkrish
Again, there are plenty of witness testimonies who tell that they do make impossible turns, disappears in a fraction of a second..so and so. Now, don't say that they are all liars seeking attention.

Not all. Some are misidentifications, yada, yada, yada. How can you tell an alien spaceship from something else? Don't say they are all alien vehicles.



I don't know why this is getting repetitive. Do you mean crafts that come and go, disappear, travel fast and comes to a sudden halt are not under intelligent control? Or they don't posses intelligence themselves?

I mean how do you know its not something that just appears to do these things? There are cases where these types of things are described that turn out to be something not alien. How do you distinguish alien "craft" from something else?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Asked and answered.

Sorry you can't refute simple logic.


you mean this?

This is just a hodge podge of nonsense.

You're not giving me a hypothetical, this is just fantasy.

followed by a repetitive string of links?

wasn't really thought out. missed the logic and the answer. was looking for something like "yes" or "no" or even "maybe".
edit on 13-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 


Why E.T? Because it a perfectly plausible and viable answer.
Plausible why? Because we know ET is visiting?


You didn't answer the second question. How do you go about demonstrating that no UFO reports involve extraterrestrials?

edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
radkrish
Again, there are plenty of witness testimonies who tell that they do make impossible turns, disappears in a fraction of a second..so and so. Now, don't say that they are all liars seeking attention.
Not all. Some are misidentifications, yada, yada, yada.


I didn't say 'everything' did impossible maneuvers. Many are of course misidentified. But some aren't and thats why the credible people are talking about it. Care to see the videos above?


How can you tell an alien spaceship from something else? Don't say they are all alien vehicles.


This has been answered already.





I mean how do you know its not something that just appears to do these things? There are cases where these types of things are described that turn out to be something not alien. How do you distinguish alien "craft" from something else?


Again, we are not talking about obvious cases where an ufo turned out to be planet venus. If it 'appears' to be doing intelligent things, then there is a very good chance that they are indeed under intelligent control.
edit on 13-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

OK


This doesn't mean there can't be other explanations but there has been none that fit the data like the ET hypothesis.

Well yeah, aliens have advanced unknown tech that can do all these amazing things. Like magic. It really doesn't require much thought. Its a "one size fits all" explanation for a very complex phenomenon. Its kind of lame really. Lets lump a pile of things together and call it aliens.



This is why blind debunkers run from the evidence like the plague and they want to talk about unicorns creating rainbows.

How do you test the evidence for aliens?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join