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: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


you forgot to provide a bunch of links and your insults were a little off. not your best work.




posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




The ET hypothesis is only invoked because it matches the data.

Yes. We have much hard data on the behavior and capabilities of extraterrestrials.

Still, the ETH is not falsifiable.

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



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
"Blind debunkers"

"Basic common sense"


Pretty sure what we're faced with here is more than just a logical impairment and comprehension handicap.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, your post makes no sense but I will explain it again. You said:

This is what blind debunkers don't understand. All I ask is that a little common sense is used.

Again, the evidence isn't weak is very strong. This is why blind debunkers can't refute the evidence. When I say the evidence, I'm not just talking about a single case. When I say evidence I'm talking about falsifying the ET hypothesis by providing evidence of another explanation to fit the data.

The ET hypothesis is only invoked because it matches the data. If blind debunkers had evidence that fit the data they wouldn't have to obfuscate with things like bigfoot, fairies and unicorns creating rainbows.

Yes, there's physical and trace evidence that accompany these reports and I've listed it over and over again. Of course blind debunkers stay away from the evidence like the plague.

Let's look at crop circles again. I don't have to look at every crop circle in order to falsify crop circles in part. This is because you have evidence of a alternative explanation that fits the data. We don't have to invoke aliens with crop circles because we know that humans can make these intricate patterns.

So again, it's not about trying to debunk a case or two. That's meaningless. It's about providing evidence that fits the data for the evidence used to build the ET hypothesis.


How can anyone refute cases that don't have actual evidence to study or any data from those cases to be studied? Crop circles have this data and therefore can be studied and refuted. Certain cases have this data and also can be refuted. That's why I gave you the example of JAL 1628, which you didn't even touch. If you do a general search on the case, you'll get biased reports everywhere from UFO website or TV programs from YouTube. But, if you search deeper you can find the transcripts and other information about the case. I'm not interested in reading the sell-able hype about these cases. I want the case in totality. That's difficult to find many times.

You're trying to argue a point by throwing a bunch of cases at me saying- "Here.. All of these cases I say are real, refute them". That's an irrational, unrealistic request. To prove your overall point... Begin with debunking my debunk of the radar data of JAL 1628 incident. This is a huge case wildly popular with believers and a good start. It's an even playing field. You have the information you need, I have mine. It makes a point that these cases in fact can be rationally explained when all of the information is looked at, as opposed to the 20 year hype saying this was a mothership.

Just curious... Have you actually done any in-depth study and personal investigation with any of these cases you keep linking? If you have, please let me know which cases. Or, do you just believe they are all true because of what you've been told and it being a UFO website using the word "scientific" in the title? I find many believers do very little if any investigation themselves. They rely upon others to tell them what are "facts". That's a horrible, disingenuous, and unscientific way of attempting to support this phenomenon. You support your own arguments because other people tell you it's so. That's the true definition of "too lazy".



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Just provide an explanation to explain the data and there's no need to invoke extraterrestrials the same thing that occurred with crop circles.

First its your data, not the data. You include abduction cases and they really don't belong lumped in with UFO sightings by pilots. So first explanation is your data is not well defined. Its a bunch of links to videos to UFO websites and videos. Much of which individually has been debunked or is questionable on its own. So the only thing that anyone can say is that your data isn't actually data. So unless you have something other than a collection of cool stories, there isn't much to say about it. So my one size fits all explanation is that you read a lot of UFO books and really believe in aliens. Its quite obvious you are not capable or willing to have a rational discussion or even entertain something other than aliens. I cant even introduce a hypothetical situation which would be an acceptable falsification of the ETH. Your responses are always irrational. Like the one you will provide to this post.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Here is a good thread on JAL 1628 Complete with map and solid explanations. Its a good read. Check out the satellite image of the giant mothership/cloud that is in the same direction with all radar returns. www.abovetopsecret.com...

This case should be pulled from the alien list.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


You said:


How can anyone refute cases that don't have actual evidence to study or any data from those cases to be studied?


You were wrong about Hawking and you're wrong now. Here you go:

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...

But of course everything here is bias and you don't need to waste your time. How blindly convenient for you to say this:

You said:


You're trying to argue a point by throwing a bunch of cases at me saying- "Here.. All of these cases I say are real, refute them". That's an irrational, unrealistic request.


Again, you're wrong about this like you were wrong about Hawking.

When I say refute the evidence, I'm simply saying provide evidence that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. You don't need to refute every case just like you don't need to refute every crop circle because you have a much better explanation to explain the data because humans can create these intricate crop circles so there's no need to invoke aliens.

What about this:



and this



and this



and this



Again, I will stipulate the one case you mentioned is as you say it is. I'm not concerned with just one case. In Science it's about the accumulation of evidence.

The reason the ET Hypothesis is so strong because there isn't a better explanation to fit the mountains of evidence used to build the hypothesis.

For instance, you have a lot of crop circles. There's no need to refute every crop circle because there's an explanation that fits the data so you don't have to invoke aliens. Proponents of aliens creating crop circles would have to present evidence that a crop circle was made that couldn't be created by humans. That's a very high bar.

The existence of extraterrestials is so strong, Hawking is ALMOST CERTAIN INTELLIGENT ALIEN LIFE EXIST.

At the end of the day, the ET Hypothesis has about a 95-98% chance of being the correct explanation for the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s. There's nothing else that fits the data. If there were we wouldn't even be talking about U.F.O.'s and Aliens. The title of this folder would need to be changed.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




The existence of extraterrestials is so strong, Hawking is ALMOST CERTAIN INTELLIGENT ALIEN LIFE EXIST.

And yet, he doesn't think they are visiting Earth.
www.discovery.com...





There's nothing else that fits the data. If there were we wouldn't even be talking about U.F.O.'s and Aliens.
Plenty of people are talking about angels and/or demons. Can you falsify those hypotheses?
edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


First link:
First article

Server Error in Application "UFOEVIDENCE.ORG"

Second article: Steven Greer, Disclosure Project
Third article was interesting so, Aliens. What else? Why would we need to look at the rest? I think we agree that the third article was due to aliens. Why do we need all the rest of this BS?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Again, Hawking weighed the evidence and came to the conclusion that intelligent alien life forms almost certainly exist. He didn't say it was possible he said it was ALMOST CERTAIN.

Was his evidence for this statement from UFOs?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


First, off Hawking explanation as to why U.F.O.'s aren't visiting earth isn't plausible. If it were, I would agree with him. He says they only appear to cranks and weirdos. These people don't look like cranks and weirdos.



or these people



or these people

www.ufoevidence.org...

Or none of this data:

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...[/yvid]

When you talked about angels and demons, I agree with that. I think there's evidence for the ancient aliens which could tie into interdimensional beings. I think the ancients may have mistaken some angels or things like jinn for extraterrestrial beings.
edit on 13-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Phage

And yet, he doesn't think they are visiting Earth.
www.discovery.com...



There's nothing else that fits the data. If there were we wouldn't even be talking about U.F.O.'s and Aliens.
Plenty of people are talking about angels and/or demons. Can you falsify those hypotheses?


INDEED.

BTW, Phage, personally, I think you are brighter than Hawking. He comes across to me more as someone who's achieved 'goddom' in his own mind . . . or been elevated to a lofty state by his fawning fans . . . or some such. I rarely read anything of his assertions that impresses me much at all. I suspect the feeling would be mutual.

In terms of the topic . . .

Yeah, the fallen angels from a spiritual dimension hypothesis seems, to me, to fit more of the data than the purported ET's from distant orbs. I think Jacques Vallee's research coupled with that of the panel of scholars assembled by Guy Malone touches far more bases from ancient history to the present than do other hypotheses.

LINK to Guy Malone youtubes:

GUY MALONE’S YOUTUBE LIST OF VIDS:


www.youtube.com... 0...1ac.1.11.youtube.pul-p6LCH2I


Nevertheless, it is an interesting phenomena . . . this full court press lemmings like rush . . .

to ascribe to the critters grandiose motivations--usually wonderfully salvific toward mankind. How they construe critters who routinely rape folks; abduct folks against their will; implant folks; alter folks; sometimes horribly mutilate folks without anesthetic--how such critters with those standard behaviors are magically construed to be "our saviors" . . . is a wilder stretch of the imagination than this psychologist can manage.

However, such a scenario DOES fit the globalist meme of establishing a one world government in this era . . . as predicted to occur . . . in the same era in which Israel became a nation again. The Great Deception rides on . . . with capes flowing in the parade of the Great Pretenders.

Time will tell, of course.

Though I suspect that the closer we get to the closing acts of the play, the harder it will be to switch to the side of Truth from the side of the Deceived.

Regardless of our differences, Phage, I persistently enjoy your posts.
.

edit on 13/4/2014 by BO XIAN because: left out link



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



I think the ancients may have mistaken some angels or things like jinn for extraterrestrial beings.
Can you falsify that?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Phage hasn't said one thing that has anything to do with science or falsifiability and you say this:


BTW, Phage, personally, I think you are brighter than Hawking. He comes across to me more as someone who's achieved 'goddom' in his own mind . . . or been elevated to a lofty state by his fawning fans . . . or some such. I rarely read anything of his assertions that impresses me much at all. I suspect the feeling would be mutual.


This just proves my point. Some people set the bar so low they will accept any nonsense at face value.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Nevertheless I stand by my impressions and feelings re Phage.

Similarly to my experience . . . Phage is NOT "one size fits all."

LOLOLOL.

He also seems to exalt in rather brief to terse assertions. Folks who cannot conceive of what might lead up to his terseness are left to flounder on their own, imho.

Wouldn't want to dare speak for Phage . . .

However, I also have been known to speak to the bottom line of my conclusions without much reference to how I got there. The wise, clever and informed can usually guess pretty well, imho.

IT seems to me that in terms of the critters . . . falsifiability is far too great a straw dog.

It's a nice thing to brandy about when one is sounding all scientific and erudite . . . I just don't think it's robust enough of an issue to carry all the water that's loaded onto it.

I much prefer to approach WHAT IS REAL

by BOTH rather REAL routes . . .

1. The so called 'scientific method' with all it's flaws from the religion of science

as well as

2. The phenomenological method with all it's flaws of subjectivity of case studies etc.

My Dissertation included both kinds of data collection and analysis.

Certainly the topic of the critters and their craft is MORE REPLETE with the phenomenological piles of data.

However, there IS also the 4,000+ verified trace landing cases with hard science sorts of evidence. Usually, folks are not impressed with that, either.

It seems that the field is LARGELY made up of a couple of major perspectives:

1. The religion of blind disbelief in the critters etc.
2. The religion of blind belief in the critters etc.

I doubt a lot of solid truth will be well developed from either route very robustly.


BTW, I don't think I've ever read hereon before . . . ANYONE accusing Phage of setting any bar TOO LOW!

LOLOLOL

edit on 13/4/2014 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by interupt42
 


Again, you're not any sense. You keep repeating the same nonsense but that doesn't make it true.


I keep repeating the same thing because you keep dodging the question.

Perhaps this is a semantics issue. What is your definition of Falsifiability?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Looks like some are more concerned with the language construction, semantics and the likes than the phenomenon itself. Sigh!



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 

Looks like some aren't really concerned with the actual topic of the thread.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


When I say refute the evidence, I'm simply saying provide evidence that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. You don't need to refute every case just like you don't need to refute every crop circle because you have a much better explanation to explain the data because humans can create these intricate crop circles so there's no need to invoke aliens.


When you're talking about crop circles, it's a single subject that can be overall refuted with the example of humans creating them. The links you continually post are different categories and different cases within those categories. So a sweeping statement can't refute them as a whole as you can with crop circles. For example, I can't say every radar case is like JAL in that what was seen is a ghost or shadow of it's own signal. Each case has to be taken on an individual basis. Unfortunately, many of those cases have no real data to be studied. Going over every one of them would be ridiculous. So, one reason I choose JAL is the fact that it's frequently posted on this forum as being one of the strongest cases of both radar data and a visual sighting. It's also a case where if you search as I did, you can find the investigation in a 377 page PDF file. Where all of the FAA interviews with the crew are shown, along with drawings, letters, FAA findings, tower to flight transcript, and many other things. To give a rational explanation to this case, shows it's possible to do with other cases as well.

I highly doubt you have done equally as much investigation into any of the cases you link. That means the crutch of your own argument rests upon other peoples investigation. And I have found with many cases, entire portions of the story have been left out or exaggerated to make for a more exciting story. For example, people are led to believe JAL had this mass of consistent radar data. The data was actually intermittent and only minutes long.

As I asked before, if you in fact have studied any of these cases for yourself, please tell me what cases.


At the end of the day, the ET Hypothesis has about a 95-98% chance of being the correct explanation for the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s. There's nothing else that fits the data. If there were we wouldn't even be talking about U.F.O.'s and Aliens. The title of this folder would need to be changed.


A 95-98% chance? With numbers like that, why are you wasting time debating alien piloted UFOs on a message board? You seem to have a real 'scientific' grasp on what's really going on and have something to share with the world.

For someone to foolishly make such a bold statement about alien beings visiting Earth... You really can't be taken seriously. You've provided absolutely nothing to show a 95-98% chance that alien beings are, or have visited Earth. The best you can do is endlessly link cases of what other people say and we're supposed to trust that as being factual. That's incredibly naive and turns this entire phenomenon into a trite and ordinary occurrence. That's ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

radkrish
Looks like some are more concerned with the language construction, semantics and the likes than the phenomenon itself. Sigh!


What phenomenon is that?

Can we also call it a socially created phenomenon? It is funny that all dozen or so races that seemed to be intertwined into all this are all humanoid in design, even the poor lizard race can't escape the humanoid mold....Hmmmm

One needs to ask why do all advance creatures on earth have only two eyes and the logical answer is they all have a common ancestor deep in our past. Now lets look at other planets with very different environments and it seems that nature has only one humanoid cookie cutter when a race happens to be intelligent.

It is not anyone's fault for when you look at the beginning of this socially created phenomenon the people 60 or so years ago didn't have the imagination we have today. Since this was all new to them they could only imagine very simple and crude ships and all aliens ended up as humanoid like, and because of this we been stuck with this beginning foundation ever since to work with. One would think that this alone should make people somewhat skeptical as to whether all this is truly alien in nature.

I read through most of these posts and I go bored real quick, for as Phage put it very early on we could interchange the term "alien" with unicorns, bigfoot, demons, angels, future humans, Nazis, Star Trek utopia and so on, and all of them would fall into the same category as not falsifiable, so there is no real point here at all.



edit on 14-4-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join