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.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic
Tell me what data didn't I use? We're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena, so tell me what data didn't I use? Here's the questions again.
ALL aerial observed phenomenon should be included. That especially includes cases that have been identified and particularly if it was initially thought to be a UFO and described as alien. This would also include known aircraft positively Identified as known aircraft. Another interesting comparison would be unknown aircraft positively identified as an unknown terrestrial aircraft.
You are not looking at data yet. You are looking at select stories of unidentified things that sound like they could be aliens to you. That's all that can be said about it.
These things are links and youtube videos they are not "data".
How are you quantifying these stories so that they can be analyzed with inferential statistics?
With inferential statistics, you are trying to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data alone. For instance, we use inferential statistics to try to infer from the sample data what the population might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by chance in this study. Thus, we use inferential statistics to make inferences from our data to more general conditions; we use descriptive statistics simply to describe what's going on in our data.
Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[51] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[52]
The astronomer Denison Olmsted made an extensive study of this storm, and concluded it had a cosmic origin. After reviewing historical records, Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers predicted the storm's return in 1867, which drew the attention of other astronomers to the phenomenon.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculianThere are exactly ZERO examples of doing what you are thinking in the real world. There is no exception for UFO cases because they are way cool.
Of course it is. The links to you tube videos are telling you about data, that you can watch and read.
You don't bother to read the data because you can't refute it.
Here's an example. Here's a You Tube video talking about investigations into U.F.O.'s and Nukes malfunctioning.
In late December 1951, Ruppelt met with members of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a think tank based in Columbus, Ohio. Ruppelt wanted their experts to assist them in making the Air Force UFO study more scientific. It was the Battelle Institute that devised the standardized reporting form. Starting in late March 1952, the Institute started analyzing existing sighting reports and encoding about 30 report characteristics onto IBM punched cards for computer analysis.
Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954, after Ruppelt had left Blue Book. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into "knowns", "unknowns", and a third category of "insufficient information." They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a "known", only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an "unknown", all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an "unknown" was quite stringent.
In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics — color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed — and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference.
The main results of the statistical analysis were:
About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.
In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases. A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.
The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases.
In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.
(More detailed statistics can be found at Identified flying objects.)
Despite this, the summary section of the Battelle Institute's final report declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge." A number of researchers, including Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who extensively reviewed the data, have noted that the conclusions of the analysts were usually at odds with their own statistical results, displayed in 240 charts, tables, graphs and maps. Some conjecture that the analysts may simply have had trouble accepting their own results or may have written the conclusions to satisfy the new political climate within Blue Book following the Robertson Panel.
When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the "unknowns" were distinctly different from the "knowns" at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information", whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also the "unknowns" tended to represent the higher quality cases, q.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses.
The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases … pose a real question."[25] When GEPAN's successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.[26]
Biology is a science that relies very much on observation. Likewise with astronomy.
These studies were replicated in 1979 and 2004 and showed the same or similar results. More of these tests need to be done but again, people can't deal with things like this honestly. They lose all common sense when you mention the words U.F.O. or extraterrestrial.
Sadly, blind debunkers make the claim that there's no DATA. This makes no sense. .
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
Biology is a science that relies very much on observation. Likewise with astronomy.
All science rely on observations. You take the observations and write them down so you can convert the observations to data. Same with astronomy. Are you saying that they don't use statistical analysis?
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.
If he wins the case, then what?
Does the idea of alien visitation then become real? What will change?
I suppose this goes back to the OP's attempt at convincing us that the scientific method already proves that alien visitation is occurring. Let's say that all scientists declare that -- even though we have no real contact yet -- the evidence suggests that alien visitation could be considered "proven". Then what?
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: EnPassant
I think there are enough people who do feel it is real, and are already considering what to do about it.
I also feel that even people who do not feel it is "proven" have already considered contingency plans about what to do about it. Science has been having this "what if aliens come" conversation for years. I'm not sure how calling it "proven" (remember, it will be called proven without any real confirmation of official contact being made) will change the results of those conversations all too much.
originally posted by: EnPassant
No. I am saying that when the statistical analysis is done the main questions will not be resolved, especially when it comes to CE3s. Stats can only provide a starting point. What is required is a reasoned debate such as you would have in court.
Stats are good when it comes to sightings - this is what converted Hynek - but they will not resolve the ETH. ETH is built on more detailed arguments than sightings, although they are part of it.
Not an actual court case but a debate dealing with evidence that goes one way or the other 'beyond reasonable doubt'
originally posted by: draknoir2
Falsification of the "null" hypothesis [no UFOs are ET controlled] would require absolute, verifiable proof of a single instance of a flying object being controlled by extraterrestrials... and by extension it would also require proof of the existence of said extraterrestrials. Refutation of hand-selected cases is NOT the same as falsification of what the OP calls the "alternative" hypothesis [some UFOs are ET controlled], which is logically impossible.
... and by extension it would also require proof of the existence of said extraterrestrials.
Yes but then lets elaborate on this. Wouldnt you say that is exactly the 'debunkers' hypothesis namely 'No ufocases are of ET source' and the believers are trying to refute this by showing the null hypothesis is true ie 'there exist at least one ufocase of ET source'?
If we agree this is a 'scientific' hypothesis regarding falsifiability we could argue that the original ETH in the OP is scientifically sound because proving this hypothesis false automatically proves the orginal ETH true...right?