The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The problem here is you're just looking to debunk.

Here's what you did. You saw the word crop circle then you ran back to the thread and said ooh, ooh, ooh, I see the word crop circle, therefore I don't have to look at all of the other evidence that doesn't mention crop circles.

It's a silly all or nothing argument that you will typically find from a debunker.

What does crop circles have to do with radar reports?

What do crop circles have to do with this:

www.ufoevidence.org...

What does crop circles have to do with this?





Did you read the documents associated with U.F.O.'s and Nukes? What does this have to do with crop circles?

www.ufohastings.com...

Again, you're not looking to debate, you're looking to debunk. So you saw the words crop circles and said ooh, ooh, ooh, I don't have to use my brain and look at the data, I can just say I saw the words crop circle and act like it means something.

So you saw the word crop circle and all of the data that has nothing to do with crop circles doesn't mean anything. How can anyone take you seriously with this type of nonsense?

You're looking to debunk not debate and it's a waste of time spending 4 or 5 threads answering the same questions over and over again that were asked and answered pages ago.

So please, before you ask a question, try reading through some of the post looking for answers instead of just looking for something idiotic that you think you can say ooh, ooh, ooh, it's debunked.

neoholographic
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Exactly!

The problem here is people try to turn science into something rigid and illogical when it comes to things like UFO's or the Paranormal.

So there's no distinctions. There's no common sense.

It's all or nothing. They have to deal in absolutes because they can't refute the evidence.

The confusion with falsifiability in this thread is with the expression you used "Some ufos" as if you meant any old light in the sky. If I am reading your post correctly you are referring to those credible sightings that have been well documented. The ETH is based on this body of evidence and any attempt to falsify ETH requires an examination of the evidence presented; those best cases that are presented.

In this respect falsification ONLY requires that this evidence be evaluated. People are not being asked to refute every light that drifts through the sky. They are being asked to address a body of carefully compiled evidence.

In this respect ETH is falsifiable. All they have to do is refute the cases presented, one by one, because it is on this finite set of cases that ETH is built.

reply to post by tanka418

As I happen to know that you are predisposed to reject any and all data presented, I think I'll pass on this opportunity to do your due diligence...

Sure you will pass.


The criteria provided by draknoir2 cannot be supplied because it doesn't exist.

Not because you think you know what and what not will be rejected because you know no such evidence exists of the things you listed that is peer reviewed and verified as being Alien DNA or some sort of Alien alloy

reply to post by Phage

No. I am trying to keep you on track.

Sorry Phage, in the 6 pages I have read so far you are not trying to keep OP on track, you are speaking to a brick wall.

reply to post by neoholographic

Here's what you did. You saw the word crop circle then you ran back to the thread and said ooh, ooh, ooh, I see the word crop circle, therefore I don't have to look at all of the other evidence that doesn't mention crop circles.

No. Here is what I did. I wanted to learn more about trace cases so I clicked on the link and read the first article. Before I saw the word "crop circle", I saw the word "dubious". The article explains the reason why it includes dubious cases and the problems associated with distinguishing crop circles from other trace cases. So I thought I would bring it to your attention since you were not aware of it.

So I think we agree that this article should be dropped from your "evidence" pile. Now I can move on to the other articles and see if there are any problems with them. If there are, do you want me to tell you? You do want me to read them for you, right? I think you would like dubious cases removed from your pile.

You're welcome.

EnPassant
The confusion with falsifiability in this thread is with the expression you used "Some ufos" as if you meant any old light in the sky. If I am reading your post correctly you are referring to those credible sightings that have been well documented. The ETH is based on this body of evidence and any attempt to falsify ETH requires an examination of the evidence presented; those best cases that are presented.

In this respect falsification ONLY requires that this evidence be evaluated. People are not being asked to refute every light that drifts through the sky. They are being asked to address a body of carefully compiled evidence.

It seems to me that if you are going by this standard, then the question you would be asking the investigator:
"Do you know of any a mundane or non-alien explanation for [insert specific sighting here]?"

If the answer is "No", then that sighting simply becomes "not identified". However, you seem to be jumping to the next level by saying:
"if you have not been able identify it with any known mundane or non-alien explanation, then that means it is alien".

The problem with that is that you would be ignoring the possibility that the sighting could have an unknown (unknown to the investigator) mundane or other non-alien explanation.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Like I said, you're just looking to debunk not debate. You said:

The article explains the reason why it includes dubious cases and the problems associated with distinguishing crop circles from other trace cases

First, this has nothing to do with the data that supports the ET hypothesis. This has everything to do with researchers being cautious as they should be.

What you said was equivalent to saying ooh, ooh, ooh, I saw the words crop circle and this means what? What is the relationship between crop circles and the ET hypothesis? The ET hypothesis doesn't depend on whether or not aliens create crop circles.

This is just someone being cautious about crop circles as they should be.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

The fact is many researches in this area are cautious unlike blind debunkers who are not looking to debate but debunk. If he was just a blind believer he wouldn't have even bothered to ask questions about crop circles.

Again, the ET hypothesis doesn't depend on whether aliens create crop circles. That's just a ooh, ooh, ooh, Horshack moment.

neoholographic

Again, the ET hypothesis doesn't depend on whether aliens create crop circles.

No, it depends on whether aliens exist.

And the inability to prove they do not is not proof that they do.

reply to post by neoholographic

Like I said, you're just looking to debunk not debate.

I am doing neither. I am examining your data and asking you to defend it.
if you want to play mr scientist, don't be a wuss.

First, this has nothing to do with the data that supports the ET hypothesis

So why is it there? And why is it the first article?

So you are saying we should keep crop circle cases mixed in with the rest of the data?

Well, I guess I am really confused about your data. If I was trying to show some real solid results, the first thing would do would be to make sure whoever is looking at my research didn't see "dubious" data.

just imagine going in front of a board to defend a dissertation....and you give them a web page with a bunch of links and the first thing they see is "This report is composed of dubious information". How well do you think it will go?

Imagine if they disagreed with you!

again, you're welcome.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

So you are saying we should keep crop circle cases mixed in with the rest of the data?

Of course it should because it was part of some of the initial reports. Like good researchers should do, they noted the questions about these reports.

Again, you're just looking for a ooh, ooh, ooh moment.

Tell me specifically, what does aliens creating crop circles have to do with radar reports or U.F.O.'s and nukes? What does aliens creating crop circles have to do with the ET hypothesis?

Like I said you saw the words crop circle and for some reason you think that means something.

Again, explain to me the connection between the ET hypothesis and aliens creating crop circles.

reply to post by draknoir2


First, of course the answer is no and like I said aliens creating crop circles has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

Secondly, I don't need to prove aliens exist. The ET hypothesis isn't about the existence of extraterrestrials. It's about the evidence surrounding the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

Why do I need to prove the existence of aliens to build the ET hypothesis?

Also, Phage tried to make this same argument a few pages ago and the suggestion that I need to prove aliens exist was silly then and it's silly now.

reply to post by neoholographic

Tell me specifically, what does aliens creating crop circles have to do with radar reports or U.F.O.'s and nukes? What does aliens creating crop circles have to do with the ET hypothesis?

That's the question I am asking you. I didn't post the links, you did.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Tell me specifically, what does aliens creating crop circles have to do with radar reports or U.F.O.'s and nukes? What does aliens creating crop circles have to do with the ET hypothesis?

That's the question I am asking you. I didn't post the links, you did.

Again it comes to this. Back and forth on the same nonsense the same way you did with your illogical statements about the null hypothesis.

Where did I say aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis? So what I posted the links. The ET hypothesis doesn't depend on aliens creating crop circles.

This just shows you're looking to debunk and not debate. If you wanted to ask about crop circles, you would of came back to the thread and made a correlation between aliens creating crop circles and the ET hypothesis. There's no correlation.

So it wasn't any attempt to debate, you just thought if I go back to the thread and mention crop circles this means I can stop reading the evidence that I can't refute. You said:

No, I will not accept your links as an answer. Your data contains dubious information by its own admittance.

This was your real goal.

You can't refute the data, so you read the word crop circle and use that excuse to say ooh, ooh, ooh, I'm not going to read any of your links. When you showed no correlation between the ET hypothesis and aliens creating crop circles. It's just more nonsense. You can't refute the data so because you read the word dubious when the researcher was talking about crop circles.

What's the correlation between the ET hypothesis and aliens creating crop circles?

reply to post by neoholographic


You posted links. I looked at one of the first ones. It says it contains dubious information some not even related to UFOs including crop circles. I am asking if you think this should be removed because its not related to UFO cases. Yes, I am critical of your data because you want to include this type of "evidence". So if you had any integrity, you would not want to include this. So what value does this have?

So you want to post links and complain that nobody reads them. This is why nobody reads them or comments on them. What's the point? So you can post whatever garbage you want and call it "data"? I think that's a problem.

Your data is bogus.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Again, more nonsense.

You just can't refute the data, so you read crop circles and now you proclaim that all data is bogus. This clearly shows you're not serious. You're a debunker not a debater.

You said:

Yes, I am critical of your data because you want to include this type of "evidence". So if you had any integrity, you would not want to include this. So what value does this have?

What type of evidence?

What value does what have?

How does aliens creating crop circles correlate to the ET hypothesis?

When you ask the question what value does it have you need to be specific. What data are you talking about and how does that data correlate to the ET hypothesis? Also, what does this data have to do with U.F.O.'s and Nukes or U.F.O.'s and radar reports?

I'm glad the researcher mentioned these things. This is exactly what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to ask questions both for and against. This is just more evidence that researchers in these areas are not blind believers, they're are examining the data with a critical eye..

reply to post by neoholographic

You just can't refute the data

That's because its not actual data. You are making sure of that.

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

Second Trace article:

This catalogue brings together many of the cases where traces have been placed in a UFO context -- even if a UFO was not reported in association with the event.

The "data" refutes itself. If you want to keep drawing attention to this, that's up to you. To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis. My question is why do you include them? So its OK to reference cases that have nothing to do with UFOs?

they're are examining the data with a critical eye

And you are undoing that. No wonder you hate debunkers so much, they have a field day with this stuff.

What you don't realize is that I am trying to help you.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


How does the data refute itself?

You said:

The "data" refutes itself. If you want to keep drawing attention to this, that's up to you. To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis. My question is why do you include them? So its OK to reference cases that have nothing to do with UFOs?

Let me put something in bold letters for you.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis

There you have it. A big waste of time.

If the cases have nothing to do with U.F.O.'s, why are you talking about them? What's your point?

So what they're included, how does this nullify cases that involve U.F.O.'s? How does this nullify U.F.O.'s and radar reports? How does this nullify U.F.O.'s and nukes?

You answered the question as to why you're talking about cases that have nothing to do with U.F.O.'s. Again you said:

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis

How do these cases being included nullify the data that does include U.F.O.'s? It's an investigator looking at the entirety of cases with a critical eye. I say BRAVO!

So just like the null hypothesis, you spend 3 or 4 post obfuscating and then when you answer the question you show it was a big waste of time.

reply to post by neoholographic

If the cases have nothing to do with U.F.O.'s, why are you talking about them? What's your point?

You posted the links around 500 times and said it was "data". These cases make up your "data" that you think supports "some UFOs are ET". You pointed out that the cases that have nothing to do with UFOs make up your "data". You are essentially admitting that there is absolutely zero integrity to what you are saying is your "data". What next, Bigfoot and Unicorns?

Its not like I had to search very hard. They are the first 2 links under "Trace cases".

So when you are talking to the FDA about the "data" for your new drug that is based on links to testimonials and youtube videos and which includes "data" that may be bogus and indistinguishable from actual "data", when they question you just say; "why are you talking about that? What's your point? Bogus data?, So what" and don't forget "What tests?" and make sure you fart real loud right after just to drive home the point that you don't really give a crap.

What value does what have?

exactly

Data (/ˈdeɪtə/ DAY-tə or /ˈdætə/ DA-tə, also /ˈdɑːtə/ DAH-tə), are tokens that can be interpreted as some kind of value, usually either as a quantitative measurement of, or a qualitative fact about some thing

How do these cases being included nullify the data that does include U.F.O.'s? It's an investigator looking at the entirety of cases with a critical eye.

You have never worked with actual data. If there is no way to tell what is actual data and what isn't, what good is your data?

I like data. I work with data every day. Lots of it.

What you need is to do is to clean up this mess. There might be something here to work with. Cant tell.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


What?????

You said:

These cases make up your "data" that you think supports "some UFOs are ET". You pointed out that the cases that have nothing to do with UFOs make up your "data".

Where did I say that cases that have nothing to do with U.F.O.'s make up the data to support the ET hypothesis? The title of this thread is:

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

So how can data that has nothing to do with U.F.O.'s and evidence that supports the ET hypothesis have anything to do with this thread?

There's someone else that also agrees with me, YOU LOL!!! You said:

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis

After nonsensical post after nonsensical post you finally answered the question and showed that your post were devoid of any meaning.

This is just too funny. You're providing a comical distraction while I'm doing research for another project. Keep it up!! I have about another hour to go.

reply to post by neoholographic

Where did I say that cases that have nothing to do with U.F.O.'s make up the data to support the ET hypothesis? The title of this thread is:

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

So how can data that has nothing to do with U.F.O.'s and evidence that supports the ET hypothesis have anything to do with this thread?

That is the question I am asking you.
Your links, your "data" that you said supports the ETH. For some reason you want to keep discussing it.
Here is the quote again from your link that you posted a few hundred times or more:

This catalogue brings together many of the cases where traces have been placed in a UFO context -- even if a UFO was not reported in association with the event.

There's someone else that also agrees with me, YOU LOL!!! You said:
To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis

Why is that funny? Yes, we agree. Agreeing is a good thing during discussions. It shows maturity. You might want to study "agreeing". I thought we agreed earlier at the top of the page here:
post by ZetaRediculian
I said:

So I think we agree that this article should be dropped from your "evidence" pile.

then I said:

So you are saying we should keep crop circle cases mixed in with the rest of the data?

you replied:

Of course it should because it was part of some of the initial reports.

So I think we disagree that the "data" that has nothing to do with UFOs should be dropped since you want to keep linking to these reports for some reason that I am not clear on. That's the actual issue and what I am questioning. If you agreed to drop the reports that "have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis" then there wouldn't be anything do discuss. For some reason you want to keep discussing it. I don't have a problem with that because its a point that I consider important that I am happy to clarify.

After nonsensical post after nonsensical post you finally answered the question and showed that your post were devoid of any meaning.

Well you missed the point obviously.
The issue is "data". If you want to allow "data" that has nothing to do with UFOs , that's an issue. If you want good clean solid data, I am all for it. For some reason you think I am out to "debunk" UFOs, I'm not. My real goal is remove the garbage from the pile while You want to keep the garbage.

This is just too funny. You're providing a comical distraction while I'm doing research for another project. Keep it up!! I have about another hour to go

Interesting comment. There is nothing funny about crappy data. well, I hope your "research" goes better this time around.