The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

a reply to: tanka418

In any case...more! You are giving us the kind of data we actually need, to make an intelligent determination.

well it is more palatable then a bunch of links that go in different directions with "see aliens". Here, I can at least look at the process and see how a conclusion was reached.

My general feeling is that it is possible we have been visited at some point. I also believe the evidence that has been presented earlier is inconclusive at best. If there is alien evidence there its buried under a bunch of nonsense.

So I don't disagree with this type of presentation. I am a little critical of using the Drake equation because its based on assumptions. At any rate, my general belief or feeling currently is not at odds with this. So the question is how do we determine what constitutes "aliens"? And why, if they are here, are we looking up in the sky? They land, crash and if interdimensional, they could be standing right next to me now.

originally posted by: tanka418


20 to 30 eh? My computations showed some 10.5, but, shortly after arriving at that number, new discoveries in space made me think it was way too conservative.

Show your work or you don't get credit.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

This is just more evidence that supports the evidence that has been presented. That's why he chose to post it in this thread.

You complain about things like You Tube links but again, that's just an excuse because you can't debate or refute the evidence. So you think if you come back to the thread and say You Tube links it means something. It doesn't, all it does is give you an excuse not to think.

I get some good info from You Tube. You just have to be willing to think and use your brain. But again, you're just using it as an excuse because you think saying You Tube links or going to links somehow damages the credibility of the evidence. This is because you can't debate or refute it.

I remember watching a TED talk on Synthetic Biology on You Tube which led me to a great book called Regenesis on the subject of Synthetic Biology.

I watched a great lecture from Leonard Susskind on the Holographic Principle which led me to even more information and published papers.

So it has nothing to do with You Tube links. You think just saying You Tube links hurts the credibility of the evidence because you can't refute or debate the evidence. It goes like this. I posted these videos. He talks about investigations into U.F.O.'s and Nukes.



This leads to this:



I also posted links to documents and the book that supports the videos.

www.ufohastings.com...

www.ufohastings.com...

Again, you can't debate or refute the evidence so you don't even bother to look at it. Your goal is to damage the credibility of the evidence by saying it's You Tube links. This is an old and obvious debating tactic that simply shows you want to blindly debate your point and complain about people showing the things you say that has nothing to do with this thread, because you can't debate or refute the evidence.

Everything that William Mook is saying supports the bottom line of this thread. It supports the results from scientific studies that were done in 1954, 1979 and 2004.

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.

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.

I say bravo and it's great that he's goes more into type 1, 2 and 3 civilizations. This is a compliment to the ET hypothesis and that's why I posted this earlier.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not following your logic. What are you saying exactly? Yes, there are you tube videos and they are way cool.

Yes, you have provided some interesting information as well as a good amount of BS and confusion. Your null hypothesis is pretty nonsensical to say the least and you struggle with basic concepts like "data". There might be some value to what you are posting but who can tell? So I think your presentation sucks. Get over it.

Heh. At least you're not posting those links to crop circles anymore.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not following your logic. What are you saying exactly? Yes, there are you tube videos and they are way cool.

Yes, you have provided some interesting information as well as a good amount of BS and confusion. Your null hypothesis is pretty nonsensical to say the least and you struggle with basic concepts like "data". There might be some value to what you are posting but who can tell? So I think your presentation sucks. Get over it.

Heh. At least you're not posting those links to crop circles anymore.

But... but... Michio Kaku video clip!!!!

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Again, this is because you can't refute it. It was so bad you hoped the thread would die about 10 pages ago. You're talking about the Null when you didn't even know what the null was.

When you were asked what do aliens creating crop circles have to do with the ET Hypothesis, you said:

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

You then complained about me putting something that you said in bold letters. I just saw a debate the other day where one of the debaters had a book the other guy wrote and he highlighted things that he said in the book. This is a debate not a crotchet class.

At the end of the day, this is very important. Because it shows that debunkers need to do 2 things. They need to avoid the evidence at all cost and they want to debate existence of aliens instead of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418


20 to 30 eh? My computations showed some 10.5, but, shortly after arriving at that number, new discoveries in space made me think it was way too conservative.

Show your work or you don't get credit.

Indeed!

alien.wolfmagick.com...

Sorry...its a link to a web page...best I can do on short notice...I do have a pdf and if you prefer I can put it on my server.

But, as you'll see, I was really selling ET short...I gave him only "G" class stars within 50 ly.

It is far more likely that ET lives not just around G class but warm K class, and cool F class stars. And, while science seems to think it "so"; I don't personally believe any advanced life form will be found around cool K class, and all M class stars. Same goes for most warmer F class stars. A, and B class stars typically don't live long enough to develop life. And exception to this may be the star Sirius...it is an A0 star, but seems to be nearly as old as Sol. Science will tell us there is no life there for a number of reasons.

Although, it may just be that the "habitable zone" for star class is F and G...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418


20 to 30 eh? My computations showed some 10.5, but, shortly after arriving at that number, new discoveries in space made me think it was way too conservative.

Show your work or you don't get credit.

Indeed!

alien.wolfmagick.com...

Sorry...its a link to a web page...best I can do on short notice...I do have a pdf and if you prefer I can put it on my server.

But, as you'll see, I was really selling ET short...I gave him only "G" class stars within 50 ly.

It is far more likely that ET lives not just around G class but warm K class, and cool F class stars. And, while science seems to think it "so"; I don't personally believe any advanced life form will be found around cool K class, and all M class stars. Same goes for most warmer F class stars. A, and B class stars typically don't live long enough to develop life. And exception to this may be the star Sirius...it is an A0 star, but seems to be nearly as old as Sol. Science will tell us there is no life there for a number of reasons.

Although, it may just be that the "habitable zone" for star class is F and G...

So you arbitrarily assigned your own values to the variables [assumptions] in the Drake "equation" and got a different result?


You should stick with the Drak equation. No assumptions. Absolute results.

a reply to: neoholographic

You brought up crop circles and I asked YOU why that was relevant. And again YOU repeatedly posted links to trace cases that had crop circle cases in them and I asked YOU why that was relevant. Yes, this is a good example of your BS and your null hypothesis is a good example of utter confusion. Both of these things can be verified.

This is a debate not a crotchet class.

This isn't a debate. If it were, there would something to debate. What this is is a bunch of people trying to explain some very basic concepts to you while you paste the same links over and over and act like ...like...someone on the internet who has trisomy of the 21st chromosome.

You're talking about the Null when you didn't even know what the null was.

what are you talking about? I absolutely have no idea what you are talking about in your null hypothesis. Is that what you mean? It doesn't make sense. Obviously you aren't disagreeing.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You said:

You brought up crop circles and I asked YOU why that was relevant.

Show me where I said aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis. Show me where I said aliens creating crop circles is relevant to the ET hypothesis. In fact, it was YOU who admitted this when I first asked you:

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

So you keep bringing up crop circles and you tube links because you can't debate or refute the evidence. It's an old debate tactic that doesn't work.

It's the same reason debunkers tried to call Edgar Mitchell old and senile when he first started talking about these things.

It's an excuse to keep blindly debating a point of view that's only supported by blind belief.

originally posted by: neoholographic


So you keep bringing up crop circles and you tube links because you can't debate or refute the evidence. It's an old debate tactic that doesn't work.

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: neoholographic


So you keep bringing up crop circles and you tube links because you can't debate or refute the evidence. It's an old debate tactic that doesn't work.

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.

Exactly my point. It's juvenile to keep bringing it up. The thread is debating the ET hypothesis. When you're asked what does it have to do with the ET hypothesis you then say:

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

So this means you're not debating, you're just being obtuse because you can't debate or refute the evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Show me where I said aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis. Show me where I said aliens creating crop circles is relevant to the ET hypothesis. In fact, it was YOU who admitted this when I first asked you:

neoholographic

People who are proponents that crop circles are created by aliens have to show evidence of a crop circle that couldn't be made by human beings

first mention of crop circles. So what did this have to do with anything? Just filler like the rest of your nonsensical statements.

So you keep bringing up crop circles and you tube links because you can't debate or refute the evidence.

problem is your "evidence" is made up of crop circles. So I am supposed to ignore your obvious inability to recognize your "data" is garbage?
anyone can look at the first 2 links under trace cases and see, yep, crop circles. Go figure. Obviously you would rather talk about crop circles than how nonsensical your null hypothesis is. Don't blame you

a reply to: neoholographic

It's juvenile to keep bringing it up. The thread is debating the ET hypothesis

you brought it up again and again. I ignored it over and over. So take the high road this time. Lets see that maturity.

a reply to: neoholographic

Pretty sure your point isn't the same as mine.

Yours seems sharper to me.

Harte

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Again, this just shows that you're blindly looking to debate your point of view instead of actually reading things. You have done this several times on this thread.

I said:

People who are proponents that crop circles are created by aliens have to show evidence of a crop circle that couldn't be made by human beings

What does this statement have to do with the ET hypothesis? Do you even know what was being debated at this point?

You saw the word crop circle and it has nothing to do with this thread and the ET hypothesis. You even know it has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis so you're not debating, you're just being obtuse. You said:

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

We were talking about the null hypothesis, something else you didn't understand. I was saying there could be a null that says no crop circles are created by aliens and proponents of this view will have to reach a high bar to falsify the null because humans can create these intricate patterns.

It had nothing to do with the ET hypothesis. There's been examples on this thread pertaining to the null about Toyota's and God creating the universe. These were debates about the null and crop circles just like Toyota's have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis. But you know this and this is why you said:

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

Sadly for you, you can't debate or refute the evidence. It's an old tactic that just doesn't work. You basically are saying , I see the word crop circle so we can ignore all of the evidence or look, it's a you tube video so I can ignore all of the evidence.

I agree with draknoir2 when he said:

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.

It's just a tactic to try and diminish the evidence you can't debate or refute. Even your friend draknoir2 can see this.

a reply to: neoholographic
Couldn't take the high road

What does any of this have to do with anything? All this is showing is that you don't want to discuss anything relevant like how your null hypothesis is void of logic.

You saw the word crop circle and it has nothing to do with this thread and the ET hypothesis. You even know it has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis

Yes, I saw the word crop circle posted several times by you and You provided links to crop circles over and over. For some reason you would rather talk about crop circles. I am not talking about crop circles anyway, you are. that's the point. I am talking about your "data" and how it has irrelevant information by you own admission.

There's been examples on this thread pertaining to the null about Toyota's and God creating the universe. These were debates about the null and crop circles just like Toyota's have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

Yes, you have brought up all kinds of things that don't relate to what anyone is discussing. ALL of your examples have made no sense. Is that the point?

Here are your choices of topic with me: 1) your "data", 2)your null hypothesis, or 3)who is talking about crop circles.
number 3 seems more appealing to you for some reason even though they are all losers. You can ignore the post also.

your choice.

originally posted by: neoholographic

I agree with draknoir2 when he said:

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.

It's just a tactic to try and diminish the evidence you can't debate or refute. Even your friend draknoir2 can see this.

Hey Neosporin, just out of curiosity, do you understand anything anyone says... at all... ever... ??

originally posted by: draknoir2
So you arbitrarily assigned your own values to the variables [assumptions] in the Drake "equation" and got a different result?


You should stick with the Drak equation. No assumptions. Absolute results.

Not quite...

Firstly, it's not quite the Drake equation. it uses somewhat different terms.
Secondly; the values are not arbitrary...they are based on valid science...kind of like the "default" values for Drake.
Third; many of the values I used are traditional Drake values.

You are aware that there are no "absolute" values to use here, or in Drake. They are all "assumptions" as you want to put it. Although; IF you were talking "Drake" to an astronomer...he might take exception at the notion of "assumption". Technically speaking these "are not guesses", they are "estimates", and therefore have a "magical" quality that makes them more valid. That being said; we both know what they are...However, they can still serve to illustrate an overall probability, or in this case the number of ETs that should be visiting. Course, then again, my estimate sees quite low (30% - 50%)...I think I'll stick with the more conservative estimate till I see better science.