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: 20
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, there's no need to validate or verify the null you have to assume that it's true until EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE!
Then what's the point of constructing a null hypothesis in the first place if you aren't going to test it?

Since you like wikipedia:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

en.wikipedia.org...

It cannot be proven that the statement "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is false. It is not falsifiable. It cannot be shown that every UFO case is not extraterrestrial in origin.
edit on 4/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 



To falsify the null we only have to have a single instance where an ET has been involved. So this thread boils down to whether or not you have chosen to believe in some instance or if you are still unconvinced. In other words, it's a matter of opinion.

I have no problem with people believing and looking at these cases in any way they want. There are certainly a lot of interesting cases that make me wonder. My opinion is that we probably have been visited at some point but I just don't think there is any clear evidence of it. If there is, its buried under this "mountain of evidence" and awful presentation.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Test what?

Why do I need to test the null?

I need to falsify it by presenting evidence that refutes the null.

Did you even read what you just quoted from Wiki?


A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.


This is exactly what I've been saying.

If you have an observation or explanation that fits the data then let's hear it.

The fact that debunkers can't offer an observation or argument which shows the ET hypothesisls to be false, it strengthens the ET hypothesis.

All you have to do is present an observation or argument that falsifies the hypothesis.

There's only 2 possibilities here. The ET hypothesis explains the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s or U.F.O.'s remain unknown ad infinitum. As long as you put your head in the sand and ignore the evidence, U.F.O.'s remain unknown.

If the ET hypothesis were accepted tomorrow, the data would be easily explained.

It's that simple.


edit on 15-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

In statistical significance, the null hypothesis is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought” in Britain or "H-zero" in America ), and is generally assumed true until evidence indicates otherwise


What is your experiment and what are you testing? From your "evidence" how are you showing "aliens". Where are your numbers and results? Graphs? What statistical methods are you using? What is your criteria for determining that someone saw "aliens". Are you using surveys? How are you quantifying your data?



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Why do I need to test the null?
Because that is the purpose of constructing a null hypothesis.



If you have an observation or explanation that fits the data then let's hear it.
That is not what falsifiable means.


A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

It is not possible to prove that the statement "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" false. It is not falsifiable.

edit on 4/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Test what?

Science

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe



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



My opinion is that we probably have been visited at some point but I just don't think there is any clear evidence of it.
Exactly, and the OP's opinion is that there is clear evidence. So there is nothing more than a difference of opinion here.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 



Exactly, and the OP's opinion is that there is clear evidence. So there is nothing more than a difference of opinion here.

Yes and his opinion is also that nobody else knows what they are talking about except for him and the people that agree with him.
For instance when I ask for clarification with this hypothetical because some crop circles were proven to be man made:

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.


his response was:

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.

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs or opinions but this kind of dialogue borders on retarded. That's my opinion.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


First you need the question and response between me and Phage before you comments.

Phage said:


Then what's the point of constructing a null hypothesis in the first place if you aren't going to test it?


I said:

Test what? There's no need to test the null hypothesis.

You then said this:


What is your experiment and what are you testing? From your "evidence" how are you showing "aliens". Where are your numbers and results? Graphs? What statistical methods are you using? What is your criteria for determining that someone saw "aliens". Are you using surveys? How are you quantifying your data?


First a little advice because you have been all over the place. If you really want to understand these things look at the evidence. It seems you're just trying to find a gotcha moment and you go from magical U.F.O.'s to quoting conversations out of context.

First off, I'm not showing aliens. It's called the ET hypothesis and it's based on evidence so I don't have to show aliens. The data supports the ET hypothesis.

The way you determine if someone saw aliens associated with a U.F.O. is through an investigation and you weigh the credibility of the witnesses the same way scientist found ASTUTE OBSERVERS to help them to better understand meteors.

So just like Scientist look at the data from Hubble or Fermi Lab, I look at the data which supports the ET hypothesis. What data is this. I have listed the data but here we go again.

U.F.O.'s causing nukes to malfunction.



Here's some documents:

www.ufohastings.com...

Here's more about the book:


Did this ominous state of affairs come to the attention of outside observers? Was there a connection between the atomic bomber squadron based at Roswell and the reported crash of a UFO nearby? Did those who pilot the UFOs monitor the superpowers' nuclear arms race during the dangerous Cold War era? Do they scrutinze American and Russian weapons sites even now?

UFOs and Nukes provides the startling and sometimes shocking answers to these questions. Veteran researcher Robert Hastings has investigated nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents for more than three decades and has interviewed more than 120 ex-US Air Force personnel, from former Airmen to retired Colonels, who witnessed extraordinary UFO encounters at nuclear weapons sites. Their amazing stories are presented here.


Now, I suspect you will not bother reading and researching these things. You will frantically run to Google and see if you can debunk something you haven't even read.

This is why I use the term blind debunkers. It's because they repeat the same nonsense, ask for the information, never look at the information and then blindly ask the same questions.

Dr. Kaku on MSNBC:



He was talking about the book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record

About the book:


They are coming forward now because of Leslie Kean, an investigative reporter who has spent the last ten years studying the still unexplained UFO phenomenon. Kean reviewed hundreds of government documents, aviation reports, radar data, and case studies with corroborating physical evidence. She carefully examined scientifically-analyzed photographs and interviewed dozens of high-level officials and aviation witnesses from around the world. With the support of former White House Chief-of-Staff John Podesta, Kean draws on her research to separate fact from fiction and to lift the veil on decades of U.S. government misinformation. Throughout, she presents irrefutable evidence that unknown flying objects – metallic, luminous, and seemingly able to maneuver in ways that defy the laws of physics – actually exist.


Of course you will not read the book or look at the information, you will just ask the same questions that have been asked and answered.

Out of the Blue:



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...

And more:

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.ufoevidence.org...

My point is this, I could list 20 pages filled with evidence the real point is can debunkers provide an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis.

The ET hypothesis exists because the data supports it. So if tomorrow if the ET hypothesis is accepted ATS better close down this forum because the ET hypothesis will explain the data associated with U.F.O.'s. Maybe call it I.F.O.'s and Alien forum. As long as people stick there heads in the sand and reject the ET hypothesis, the data associated with U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

radkrish

Eye witness reports are the key in the court of law. But when it comes to spotting ufos, people simply lie for the sake of it.


When a eye witness report is augmented by physical evidence it provides a stronger case, but I think everyone is seen how limited the human true observation abilities really are. It is so bad that we laugh every time we do an experiment to test it.

Also think about the validity if a person said an ogre raped them, or a demon robed them....this is basically the same thing as a person saying an alien probed them.... But for some reason we believe the person was probed when all three cases have then same lack of evidence.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I have no problem with anyone's beliefs or opinions but this kind of dialogue borders on retarded. That's my opinion.
Well sure, where else can you find this type of dialog.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment

So you don't have anything to show with regards to the definitions you are supplying.

Where is your statistical inference? Where is your scientific experiment? How are you quantifying your data?


In statistics, statistical inference is the process of drawing conclusions from data that are subject to random variation, for example, observational errors or sampling variation.[1] More substantially, the terms statistical inference, statistical induction and inferential statistics are used to describe systems of procedures that can be used to draw conclusions from datasets arising from systems affected by random variation,[2] such as observational errors, random sampling, or random experimentation.[1] Initial requirements of such a system of procedures for inference and induction are that the system should produce reasonable answers when applied to well-defined situations and that it should be general enough to be applied across a range of situations. Inferential statistics are used to test hypotheses and make estimations using sample data.


The only thing you have done is draw a conclusion without showing any work. Collections of stories and YouTube videos are collections of stories and YouTube videos. You essentially included crop circles in your "evidence" pile but also concluded crop circles are not alien. There is absolutely no clear definition of anything you are trying to show. Your "data" is not actual data that can be analyzed objectively by any statistical process whatsoever. Your presentation is absolutely meaningless with regards to:

In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment



Test what? There's no need to test the null hypothesis.

Then there is no reason to have one. Its like you have a new drug and you are convinced that it is effective. The null being is that there is no effect. So you present the FDA a bunch testimonials and youtube videos and say "see". When they ask if you did any tests just say "Test what?". Maybe you could take some college courses and try it. Just sit in the back of the class and make fart noises and say "Test What?"

Obviously you have never done this before. My advice is to start with something simple and work your way up.


edit on 15-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Of course you will not read the book or look at the information, you will just ask the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I read the Kean book a couple of years ago. I actually have a collection of UFO books as well as non UFO books. I have never read any books by "UFO debunkers" either. The last book I read was "Hallucination" by Oliver Sacks. There was some good stuff in there but it was a little dry. I am interested in reading some Vallee books. A few years ago I read only UFO books and watched every pro UFO documentary I could. It got to the point where I totally expected to see a UFO if I looked up enough. Every time I flew, I made sure I had a window seat just in case and a camera at the ready. At one point I watched and read ONLY abduction documentaries and books. What I found was once you "buy into" what they are selling you without question, you loose touch with reality. Once you start asking questions, you get kicked out of alien club because the first rule of alien club is don't question alien club as you are eloquently displaying. So I am pretty familiar with the subject.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Alien abductions, close encounters, eyewitness accounts tell you what they say. Why can't you use common sense to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely?


You know what those aspects have in common?

None of them can be verified unless the event could be recorded. Of the thousands (millions?) of people touched by aliens in one way or another, how come nobody - ever - was able to get some form of evidence?

To me, and many science minded people, "common sense" makes me reach the conclusion that it's bull!"#$.


SCIENCE REACHES CONCLUSIONS ALL THE TIME BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!


Newsflash...

Science only reaches a conclusion after observing all of the available evidence. If you choose what data you use, or if you choose to use only a portion of the data, then you are making propaganda, not science.


People love to throw out science but this is exactly what Science does.


No. What science "does" is to reach a conclusion after analyzing and processing all of the evidence, and most importantly, after replicating the results of the conclusion (theory) in laboratory conditions. If new data appears that contradicts what was analyzed and verified, then you restart the process to reach a new conclusion.

Reaching a conclusion and then trying to fit the pieces to prove your theory right isn't science. It's making sh1t up and accepting any argument that falls on your lap, forgetting about all the contradictory data available.


Scientist have reached conclusions for string theory, Hawking radiation, extra dimensions and more based on the available evidence.


Scientists have a very long list of possible and hypothetical theories. The problem is with proof.

You seem to repeat the word "conclusions", but you are actually talking of theories. Scientific knowledge, however, is based on verifiable and repeatable data. A theory is just a theory.


How do you think Hawking and Kaku came to the conclusion that Aliens exist??


They didn't come to the conclusion that aliens exist. To reach that conclusion they would need to handshake an alien, or at least, look at a bacteria zoomed in on a monitor. Anything other than that, it's their opinion, and although they are very respectable scientists with amazing brains, they can't prove their opinion - regarding ET life - any more than I can prove that I have a dolphin that talks to me via skype.

What most respectable and "grand" scientist will tell you is that looking at what we know and have verified scientifically here on Earth, we can assume there is ET life out there. Not because they - scientists - know something you don't, but because they are aware how vast the Universe is, and it's nearly mathematically impossible for the conditions we have on Earth NOT to repeat elsewhere, as far as life existence is concerned.

Not only that, but anyone who actually uses science as a thinking "tool" will know that the idea of ET beings even remotely similar to humanoid shape, is nothing more than a stupid cultural joke on the ability for people to tell BS stories to each-other.

Really? An advanced civilization travels through space, maybe for thousands of years, possibly looking for extremely rare minerals or cosmic events, and they are going to make a stop near Bob's house, just down the street from my house, and stick a metal probe up his arse. Because, you know, f..k blackholes and different dimensions, the Universe secrets it's inside Bob's arse.

Common sense is more absent from many UFO believers and theories than the actual ET's they are looking for...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Exactly what I suspected.

Nothing.

You ask for the data and yet you read nothing and then come back and ask the same questions. Like I said, I have listed mountains of evidence in this thread and all you do is try to look for something to blindly debunk and if you can't find it you come back to the thread and ask the same questions.

This clearly shows that you don't even read the evidence you just try to blindly debunk. You said:


The only thing you have done is draw a conclusion without showing any work. Collections of stories and YouTube videos are collections of stories and YouTube videos.


This is pure nonsense. I knew you wouldn't read the data. So you post a silly You Tube video and ignore the data. You're not interested in a debate, you just want to blindly debunk.

Case in point, I already said that that there isn't any evidence that Aliens create crop circles. What does the blind debunker do? Do they read the information? Nope. He went to the information and looked for something he can post where he can run back to the thread and say, look this case mentions crop circles so all the evidence is debunked.

It's the all or nothing nonsense you get from blind debunkers.

The observed data comes from the evidence. Here's more about the null.

First let me say, you don't test the null hypothesis. The null is assumed to be true. Here's an example:

Let's say you have a hypothesis that Aspirin can help prevent heart attacks.

The null hypothesis says that Aspirin can't help prevent heart attacks. You don't test the null. You assume this statement is true. This is why it's called falsification. You test the alternative hypothesis and refute the null. There's nothing to test when it comes to the null hypothesis. How do you test something that's assumed to be true?

You should really try to understand what you're talking about before you comment. The beauty of science is that you don't have to test the null. The null is assumed to be a true statement. This puts the onus on the proponents of the alternative hypothesis to falsify the null.

So it would be assumed true that Aspirin doesn't help prevent heart attacks. There's nothing to test. Here's more:


In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

In statistical significance, the null hypothesis is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought” in Britain or "H-zero" in America ), and is generally assumed true until evidence indicates otherwise


You're a blind debunker that's not interested in actually reading and debating the evidence. You want to blindly look for something you think you can debunk and then run back and post videos of Welcome Back Kotter when you're the one looking more ignorant than Horshack.

The Null is ASSUMED to be true. YOU DON'T TEST THE NULL. The only thing you can do is demonstrate the null is false. This is why it's called falsification Horshack.

Now to the data.

Let's look at the heart attack and aspirin example again. The alternative hypothesis is looking for a relationship between aspirin and the prevention of heart attacks. The whole idea behind falsification is to put the null in a position of strength and it's assumed true.

You then give people Aspirin and see if there's a correlation between taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks.

With the ET hypothesis, what are the two measured phenomena? U.F.O.'s and radar reports, trace evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness accounts, close encounters, U.F.O.'s malfunction nukes and more.

The ET hypothesis says there's a relationship between U.F.O.'s and lets use radar reports. Is there any evidence that supports this correlation?


Sgt. Chuck Sorrells: US Air Force (ret.), December 2000

Chuck Sorrells is a career Air Force military man who was at Edwards Air Force Base in 1965 when not one, but at least seven UFOs appeared over Edwards Air Force Base airspace, moving in extraordinary fashion at enormous speeds, making right-hand turns and other maneuvers which no known aircraft was capable of at the time. They appeared on multiple radars, were seen visually by several people, and a special UFO officer scrambled and authorized a jet to intercept these objects. This event lasted for five or six hours. An edited transcript of the audiotape of the event follows his testimony.


Mr. Michael W. Smith: US Air Force, November 2000

Michael Smith was an Air Traffic Controller with the Air Force in Oregon and, subsequently, in Michigan. At both of these facilities he and others witnessed UFOs tracked on radar and moving at extraordinary speeds. He also confirms that personnel were expected to maintain secrecy concerning these observations, and that NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, was fully apprised of these events. In fact, in one event in Michigan, NORAD was fully engaged, and steered B-52s returning to base around these UFOs.


Commander Graham Bethune: US Navy (ret.), November 2000

Cmdr. Graham Bethune is a retired Navy commander pilot with a top-secret clearance. He was a VIP Plane Commander who flew most of the high-ranking officers and civilians from Washington D.C. In his testimony he explains how he was flying a group of VIP’s and other pilots into Argentia, Newfoundland when they all witnessed a 300 foot UFO that traveled 10,000 feet straight up in a fraction of a second toward their plane and was on radar. He has documented the event extensively.


Mr. Enrique Kolbeck: Senior Air Traffic Controller, October 2000

Mr. Enrique Kolbeck is a senior Air Traffic Controller at Mexico City International Airport. In his testimony he speaks about the frequent UFO sightings seen at the airport visually and on radar. They are clocked at tremendous speeds and making almost instantaneous hairpin turns. Of the 140 air traffic controllers at the airport, he estimates that over 50 have seen this phenomenon. During one sighting, 32 controllers visually saw the same red and white lights simultaneously moving around a conventional landing aircraft. There have been reports from all four air traffic control centers in Mexico of these UFOs.


Dr. Richard Haines: November 2000

Dr. Haines has been a NASA research scientist since the mid 1960’s. He has worked on the Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab programs as well as several others. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Haines has compiled over 3,000 cases of unusual visual and radar sightings of unexplained aerial phenomena. He notes that numerous foreign cases also appear in the literature and are very similar in nature to the American reports. In one case here in America, a B-52 captain told him that he and his crew had five round spheres appear just off of each wingtip, behind their aircraft, above the aircraft, and below and they kept up with the plane at cruise altitude and speed. The captain tried to shake the spheres with evasive maneuvers but each sphere kept exact position. There are other cases where pilots look into the transparent cupola of some of a UFOs and detail can be seen inside.


Mr. Franklin Carter: US Navy, December 2000

Mr. Carter was trained as an electronic radar technician in the Navy in the 50’s and 60’s. He tells of an incident where he witnessed a clear, unambiguous radar contact speeding along at 3,400 miles an hour. There were other radar operators as well who, at various times in 1957 and 1958, also witnessed these unusually fast moving objects. At the time, the fastest human aircraft clocked in at 1,100 miles and hour. In one case an Air Force operator tracked one of these UFOs 300 to 400 miles out in space. When these reports repeatedly kept coming in to General Electric who manufactured the radar, their technicians came in and modified the electronics so that the radar would limit it’s reporting to 12 to 15 miles out into space.


Neil Daniels: Airline Pilot, November 2000

Mr. Daniels is a pilot with over 30,000 of flight time spanning 59 years. He entered the Air Force and became a B-17 pilot surviving 29 combat missions. After leaving the Air Force he worked for United Airlines for 35 years. He tells about the time in March of 1977 when he was flying a commercial flight from San Francisco to Boston. The plane was on autopilot when by itself it began to bank left. He looked out the window and noticed a brilliant bright light. The first and second officers both saw it also. They were perplexed because all three compasses reported different readings.


Sgt. Robert Blazina: (ret.), August 2000

Mr. Robert Blazina is a retired military man with a top-secret clearance. He worked transporting nuclear weapons all over the world. He personally witnessed a UFO maneuvering in the clear nights sky at an incredible speed straight up. Another time he and a civilian 747 both saw on their radar screens an object travel an estimated 10,000 miles an hour directly at them.


Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox: US Navy (ret.), September 2000

Lieutenant Fox was in the Navy in the 60’s flying attack planes. He had a top-secret clearance and served in Vietnam. He is a retired pilot of 33 years with American Airlines. In his testimony, he reveals that there is a publication called JANAP 146 E that has a section which states that no one is to share any information regarding the UFO phenomenon under penalty of $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison. During one incident in late 1964, while flying an A4 Skyhawk, he says that all of a sudden a darkened saucer shaped object about 30 feet in diameter appeared on his left side. There were many other events over the course of his career where he observed saucer shaped and cigar shaped UFOs over military installations as well as one time seeing two red lights traversing the night’s sky from horizon to horizon in three seconds. He was afraid to bring up these events to others due to the inherent ridicule in the subject.


Captain Massimo Poggi: September 2000

Captain Poggi is a senior 747 captain for Alitalia. He relates an event where when flying from Rome to Sao Paolo in July of 1999 he witnessed a glowing green halo soaring past just 500 feet below his 747. The aircraft experienced a sudden jump when this UFO passed underneath. Very noisy static came through his headphones during this experience. At another time while flying over Turin Italy in 1992, he saw a distant elliptical sphere maintaining a very steady position relative to the clouds as if stationary. He saw this UFO through a spotting scope. After looking away to briefly speak to his co-pilot, he looked back and it was gone


Mr. Don Bockelman: US Army, September 2000

Mr. Bockelman was a Launch Area Electronics Technician for the US Army. He was also trained as a systems analyst and worked on Nike Hercules missiles. For two years he worked for Honeywell making nuclear tipped torpedoes. Mr. Bockelman heard numerous first hand accounts from various radar operators that they were seeing extremely fast targets moving at 3500 miles an hour. Some of these were making impossibly small-radius turns. At one time he witnessed an attempted to shoot one down with an air defense missile near Mount Vernon, WA.


This is just a small sample.

Here's more:



I can go on and on but the point is there's a correlation between U.F.O.'s and radar data. In one case the U.F.O. would stop and then accelerate to over 1,000 MPH and this was caught on radar.

The ET hypothesis isn't about extraterrestrials, it's about U.F.O.'s. The data involving U.F.O.'s has been documented and investigated for years.

It's simple the ET hypothesis isn't about extraterrestrials it's about U.F.O.'s. It's about correlations between things like U.F.O.'s and radar reports, U.F.O.'s and trace evidence, U.F.O.'s and physical evidence and more. So falsifying the ET hypothesis is simple. You can show these correlations don't exist or provide a better explanation for these correlations.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


Right from the start I see you don't know how science works. You said:


Science only reaches a conclusion after observing all of the available evidence. If you choose what data you use, or if you choose to use only a portion of the data, then you are making propaganda, not science.


This is just another case of a debunker using the all or nothing language. Sadly, you never see common sense used to make distinctions.

If this was the case, scientist could never reach conclusions about General Relativity because aspects of it is still being tested. Scientist could have never come to conclusions about the Higgs Boson or Inflation.

Scientist don't have to wait until ALL of the available evidence is observed. This is absolutely absurd and if this was the case science would stall in it's tracks waiting for all of the available evidence is observed before conclusions are reached.

Why is this the case?

It's because scientist aren't reaching these conclusions in a vacuum. These things are based on the observed evidence that's available. For instance, many Scientist concluded that inflation is most likely because it explained the observed evidence. It explained things like why the CMB is uniform.

Scientist weigh the evidence and comes to conclusions as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time by weighing the available evidence.

Scientist today still haven't observed ALL of the available evidence with quantum mechanics, yet they still have concluded that it works or you wouldn't be on your computer right now if it didn't. If it was up to you, we would have to throw out cell phones, computers, DVD players and more until ALL the available evidence is observed.
edit on 16-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   

EnPassant
This shows a very poor understanding of how evidence is evaluated. If someone says they saw a craft - maybe. But if two people saw a craft and reported it behaving in the same ways (falling leaf motion etc.) there may be something in it. And if thousands of people keep saying the same thing over and over, witness testimony takes on a qualitative dimension that arises out of comparative analysis. A statistical picture is built up. You cannot undermine this by questioning just one sighting or treating them as individual episodes.


We don't need to invoke aliens to assume that a minuscule fraction, of hundreds of BILLIONS of observations of objects each day under a wide variety of conditions, could be explained given the right information or merely given better observation under better conditions. It is essentially impossible to identify everything given random observers under random observing conditions.

Frankly, bringing up mass sightings is particularly weak. All of the mass sighting cases I've seen on the web are readily explained things such as as birds (at night and at dusk) and balloons during the day. I haven't seen any mass sighting cases which are even remotely convincing except possibly the Phoenix Lights case. That one is interesting, but IMO the Phoenix Lights do not require aliens either. Given plausible alternate explanations which are even just a little far-fetched, there is no need to go to something extremely far-fetched like aliens for the answer. I'm quite comfortable with allowing that to continue to be considered an unknown but likely a human-caused event.

Your error in assigning huge meaning to a minuscule fraction of events is that you are screening the events by particular features and ignoring a much larger set of other events with features which do not fit your presupposed outcome of importance. This is a very common error in looking at data. But it is an error because you are not seeing the continuum of events to which this particular tail (seemingly outliers) belongs. A more correct analysis would be to estimate the tail properties (what percent should have which features) and then determine if you are seeing much more than one would expect to see in this tail. If you are, you then need to go back and check your assumptions about what that tail population should look like. If the assumptions about the tail population expectation look good, you then have to go get NEW data. Why new data? Because you noticed this set of features because they stood out. We expect to have some features stand out at random in any sample from a population so it is invalid to use that data which helps form a hypothesis to test the hypothesis. At that point, you (finally) have a hypothesis which is testable and if properly formed, and estimator which is admissible. Once all this is set up, the new data can then form a proper test of hypothesis and we can derive meaningful statements about how likely the observed data was under the null and alternate. This is how science (and hypothesis testing) works in the real world.

So, we really do expect to have events with movement which appear: erratic, too fast, too slow, soundless, etc -- in fact there are MANY cases (probably billions daily) where this has been observed but the cause is known or believed to be known with high probability. So they should exist in the unknowns (UFOs) too.

On the other hand, if there was any real evidence of alien visitation (DNA or physical devices well beyond our capability), there would be no problem accepting the data -- provided examination by multiple experts who had more or less free access to examine the evidence (and not just examine a report) came to the same general conclusion. Why multiple experts? Well, one only has to go back to "cold fusion" to understand that a single expert or two working a little out of their field can produce very questionable results. We have a pretty strong belief that, given what we know of this world, there should be no DNA which is completely disjoint from the known gene pool. The same is true of physical devices which are far beyond our capability to conceive and manufacture. There is supposed to be NOTHING in that particular tail if it is natural or human-origin. That's why this kind of evidence is preferred. It is unambiguous and a single case suffices.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



You ask for the data and yet you read nothing and then come back and ask the same questions.

That's not data. Not the way are thinking of it. The questions are rhetorical. I am not expecting you to show anything of value in 10 minutes. I read enough to know you are confused as all heck. I am pretty sure I have read more of those links than you have anyway. There is nothing new there. Have you ever done any analysis on real data? The only thing you have done is draw a conclusion without showing any work. Collections of stories and YouTube videos are collections of stories and YouTube videos. Science only reaches a conclusion after observing all of the available evidence. If you choose what data you use, or if you choose to use only a portion of the data, then you are making propaganda, not science.

You essentially included crop circles in your "evidence" pile but also concluded crop circles are not alien. There is absolutely no clear definition of anything you are trying to show. Your "data" is not actual data that can be analyzed objectively by any statistical process whatsoever. Your presentation is absolutely meaningless with regards to:


In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment

There is no statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment. What you are presenting is absolutely meaningless.



I can go on and on


no doubt
edit on 16-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   

neoholographic

Scientist don't have to wait until ALL of the available evidence is observed. This is absolutely absurd and if this was the case science would stall in it's tracks waiting for all of the available evidence is observed before conclusions are reached.


Quite frankly, because of your inexperience with analyzing data, you totally misunderstood his statement. You do have to use all of the data in the sample, you can't pick and choose to look at only the data you like. What you are doing is ignoring 99.999999999% of the data and selecting a few cases which you like. That isn't permitted.

For example, I have a friend whose car was clocked on radar at >120 mph when he was stopped at a traffic light. Another friend was clocked doing something like 60 mph on his bicycle and was being passed by cars going 20 mph. Not all radar data is valid data.

If you have ever read a bit about the experiments in quantum mechanics (which you see to like to quote) you will find that they measure statistical properties of ALL the data collected in the sample and then draw their conclusions. Sometimes these samples go on for weeks and months before sufficient data is collected for analysis. They don't pick and chose single events or a small number of events. Billions to trillions of observations are involved in the analysis -- as an ENTIRE set.
edit on 331am14America/Chicago47056kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Translation:

"I'm too lazy to actually read any data but I hope people will still believe what I'm saying if I just repeat it."

You don't even know the purpose of the null hypothesis, and you can't actually read the data you're just looking for anything you think you can use to debunk.

How can anyone take anything you say seriously?

Now you're bringing up crop circles again.

Like I said, I answered your questions and if you don't understand something like the null hypothesis you just can't respond to what I'm saying so you have to resort to repeating yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join