The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by lostgirl


What???

You said:

First, please don't mistake my intent here, I totally get and agree with your 'stance' re: that the op is incorrect in his insistence that "unfalsifiable" equals 'true'...

What are you talking about exactly. Point to the particular post where I was insistent about this stance that you claim I made.

Secondly, the unicorns create rainbows comments is just pure rubbish. It was done because he couldn't refute the evidence presented. Blind debunkers have been doing this since I first came to ATS.

First it was the easter bunny and santa, then it evolved to flying spaghetti monsters and I guess we're now on unicorns creating rainbows.

The fact is falsification is not used to show something doesn't exist. Falsification is there to demonstrate the falsehood of a theory. In fact, this is why many theories stick around in some form or fashion.

reply to post by Phage


Wow, more unscientific nonsense. I've figured out, people somehow think you know what you're talking about because you say these things and for some reason it's taken seriously. You said:

What happens when we apply this approach to the ETH? First, the problem is that UFOs are a lot more rare than rainbows. This makes them difficult to study but since the vast majority of UFO cases have been falsified, the ETH can be said to have been statistically falsified. Does this mean that the hypothesis is falsified? No, it means that statistically, it is unlikely to be valid.

Difficult to study??

Mountains of evidence have been listed by me and others yet you and other blind debunkers never respond to the evidence because you can't. You just talk about unicorns and rainbows which makes no sense.

No it's not difficult to study. There have been many investigations and studies over the years. It's like saying there's more stars than U.F.O.'s so it's difficult to stud U.F.O.'s.

The pure nonsense is just staggering.

How is it statistically falsified. What UFO cases are you talking about?

How do you falsify a U.F.O.??

reply to post by neoholographic

Difficult to study??

Yes. Being transient phenomenona, conducting detailed scientific analysis (this is supposed to be scientific, right?) is quite difficult. As far as I know, there have been no cases of a scientific observing program ever having captured a single UFO event. But even if there were such a case the best it could do would be to confirm (or help confirm) the ETH. It could not falsify it.

Mountains of evidence have been listed by me and others yet you and other blind debunkers never respond to the evidence because you can't. You just talk about unicorns and rainbows which makes no sense.

Evidence which cannot be falsified (in regard to the ETH) without additional information. Nor can unicorn created rainbows.

No it's not difficult to study. There have been many investigations and studies over the years. It's like saying there's more stars than U.F.O.'s so it's difficult to stud U.F.O.'s.

Oh you mean analysing previous events, not trying to catch a UFO "in the act." It's interesting that the more data which accumulates for cases, the more cases are falsified. There was a thread about a UFO investigator noting that phenomenon. That sort of gets into that statistical falsification situation.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

How is it statistically falsified. What UFO cases are you talking about?

You can see above for some, but:
www.ufo-bbs.com...

Are you saying that the majority of UFO cases are unresolved?

How do you falsify a U.F.O.??

Good point. How do you determine that a UFO is not controlled by extraterrestrials?

reply to post by Phage


First, not one thing you have shown has falsified U.F.O.'s. The most you have shown is that there's a rebuttal from skeptics on 3 cases. From your link.

The stimulus for my concern has been the recent
success of skeptics in shooting down some highprofile
UFO cases that once seemed unassailably
strong. Within the past two years or so they have provided
a conventional explanation for the 1997 Phoenix
Lights, a case with thousands of witnesses, including
the governor of Arizona, and highlighted in Leslie
Kean’s best-selling book, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and
Government Officials Go on the Record. They succeeded
again with the 1996 Yukon “giant mothership” case,
advertised in a popular TV show as one of the “ten
best” UFO reports of all time. Most troubling of all
was an article in the Skeptical Inquirer by James
McGaha and Joe Nickell that offered a solution for
the “Incident at Exeter,” a 1965 classic that J. Allen
Hynek considered an exemplary close encounter of
the first kind, and a case that most ufologists counted
on to stand forever. I certainly thought so, since I included
it in my 2010 book as high on my short list of
favorite—and genuine—UFOs.

This is just laughable. The article list 3 cases where skeptics offer an alternative explanation and he labels it a string of successes? Based on what??? The article says this:

The ufological community has largely ignored
this string of successes. After all, explaining cases is
what skeptics do, or try to do. Many of their past at-
tempts have provided more laughs than enlighten-
ment, or at most gave cause for exasperation, but the
skeptics get it right now and then. Reasonable ufolo-
gists accept that most UFO reports describe conven-
tional events mistaken for something strange, and
even a few classic cases are bound to fall apart from
time to time thanks to new information or renewed
examination. For many ufologists proof is no longer
an issue, but an afterthought. They feel certain that
the existence of UFOs was established years ago and
an extensive body of high-quality unknowns provides
ample proof; now the mission is to understand the
meaning of UFOs, which usually means understand-
ing what our alien visitors are doing here. The loss of
a case or two, even a significant one, means nothing
in this larger picture. We have plenty more good cases
on file and new ones coming in all the time, so why
pay any attention to the pitiful gnawing of the oppo-
sition?

The article makes no sense. Whoever wrote was obviously conflicted because they were all over the place. This is laughable. He actually summed it up right. He's talking about 3 cases and it means nothing at all. I welcome more scrutiny from lazy debunkers. Most of them don't bother to investigate when they can't refute the evidence. They then scream all over the internet when they come up with an alternative explanation. This is a meaningless paper about one person feeling conflicted over 3 cases and calling it a string of successes. No, it's a string of failures because the cases they can't come up with another explanation they never mention.

You then quote something from a 1950's debunker.

Many people are surprised to learn that virtually 90% of all UFO reports can be and have been explained. The major argument seems to be over whether the remaining 10% is noise or signal. Here is a list of things which have been the primary cause of UFO reports in the past. Its a list that any investigator should be aware of when studying a particular report. It was compiled by Donald Menzel, a noted debunker of the 50s and 60s. (taken from UFOs: A Scientific Debate, Sagan and Page, eds.)

Whose debating whether 10% are noise or a signal? Where do you get this nonsense?

You haven't falsified anything.

Yes, most U.F.O. cases are unresolved. If a U.F.O. is identified then it's no longer a U.F.O. This doesn't falsify U.F.O.'s. U.F.O.'s exist and the most you can do is try to build a hypothesis to explain U.F.O.'s.

Again, this is why I listed the evidence that shows that U.F.O.'s exist and display behavior that fits the ET Hypothesis.

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...

Science haven't shown the U.F.O.'s don't exist but you probably agree with an idiotic statement like this because it's in line with your unscientific claims about science showing a multiverse doesn't exist.

The fact is, U.F.O.'s exist. There's no doubt about that. The only thing in question is how do you explain these U.F.O.'s. There's Identified Flying Objects and there's Unidentified Flying Objects. Are some U.F.O.'s mistaken as I.F.O.'s? Of course but the existence of U.F.O.'s are well established.

reply to post by neoholographic

The article makes no sense. Whoever wrote was obviously conflicted because they were all over the place. This is laughable. He actually summed it up right. He's talking about 3 cases and it means nothing at all.

Apparently you didn't read the whole article. That is not his summary, that is his introduction.

Whose debating whether 10% are noise or a signal? Where do you get this nonsense?

Are you saying that the majority of UFO reports are not hoaxes or misidentifications, or otherwise unrelated to ET? In any case I was was pointing out that statistical falsification does not fully falsify the hypothesis. You seem to agree with me.


Radar can be subject to the effects of anomalous propagation. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

Trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

Vehicle interference can be shown to be due to other causes. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

The same can be said of everything you listed. The ETH cannot be falsified.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, I read the whole article and it's meaningless. It's about 3 cases and it just shows that skeptics have an alternative explanation for these 3 cases. It's not a string of successes and he even calls it a drop in the bucket. It falsifies nothing.

The fact they're hoaxes and misindentifications says nothing about the existence of U.F.O.'s. There isn't any statistical falsification. It's just pure nonsense. If a U.F.O. is identified it becomes an I.F.O. and you haven't falsified the existence of U.F.O.'s or the ET Hypothesis in part.

You then said this:

Radar can be subject to the effects of anomalous propagation. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

Trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

Vehicle interference can be shown to be due to other causes. If that is demonstrated to have occurred, how does it falsify the ETH?

It falsifies the ET hypothesis because it will show that these UFO's are more likely an atmospheric phenomena. If you can show that the presence of a U.F.O. didn't cause the Radar, trace evidence and vehicle interference in these cases, then that will falsify in part the ET hypothesis.

If the U.F.O. is a craft you would expect to leave physical and trace evidence and move in ways sometimes captured on radar that shows intelligence or moves in ways that defies current explanation.

You could investigate these cases and show that the U.F.O. had nothing to do with malfunctions at Nuke sites.

Most debunkers are too lazy to look into these things so of course this will never happen. We'll just keep hearing about unicorns creating rainbows.

reply to post by neoholographic

If you can show that the presence of a U.F.O. didn't cause the Radar, trace evidence and vehicle interference in these cases, then that will falsify in part the ET hypothesis.

For the cases involved, not for all cases.

You could investigate these cases and show that the U.F.O. had nothing to do with malfunctions at Nuke sites.

How would you do that? But if you could, it does not address other cases.

Individual cases can be falsified in regard to the ETH and many have been.
The hypothesis: "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials", cannot be falsified.

reply to post by Phage


What other cases are you talking about?

Where can I find these other cases? Can I get a website to these other cases?

Another statement that makes no sense. You said:

Individual cases can be falsified in regard to the ETH.
"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" cannot be falsified.

Some UFO's is made up of individual cases that build the hypothesis. You're worse than that Starburst commercial about contradictions.

If I can falsify individual cases when it comes to the ET hypothesis. Then those individual cases that were FALSIFIED make up the hypothesis that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. LOL, WOW!!

So the SOME consist of the individuals cases that you say can Falsify the ET hypothesis.

Again, if debunkers weren't so lazy, they could get out here and investigate these cases and falsify the ET hypothesis. They can't so you keep hearing things like unicorns creating rainbows.

Man, you're full of contradictions.

reply to post by neoholographic

What other cases are you talking about?

Where can I find these other cases? Can I get a website to these other cases?

You mean like the links you posted above?

Then those individual cases that were FALSIFIED make up the hypothesis that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

Oh, I get it. The ETH is composed of the falsified cases.

Alrighty then. If the cases that have been falsified make up the ETH, that means that the hypothesis has been falsified. No UFO's are controlled by extraterrestrials. Got it.

But I though the ETH was a bit more inclusive than that, you didn't previously specify that only falsified cases were included.

Again, if debunkers weren't so lazy, they could get out here and investigate these cases and falsify the ET hypothesis.

Oh, they've been investigated and what you end up with is eyewitness reports (not scientific) and a lot of missing information that could be used to falsify the case if it were available but isn't.

This will always be the case. The ETH cannot be falsified. Bigfoot cannot be falsified. Multiple universes cannot be falsified. And yes, unicorns making rainbows cannot be falsified.

reply to post by neoholographic


"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials"

1. I spot a ufo but find out it was a top secret jet controlled by a pilot.. Does not disprove that "some" are controlled by aliens.

2. I spot a ufo AND find an alien controlling it. Does not disprove that "some are controlled by aliens.

So how do you disprove that some are controlled by aliens?

reply to post by interupt42


What?? You said:

1. I spot a ufo but find out it was a top secret jet controlled by a pilot.. Does not disprove that "some" are controlled by aliens.

No, it just shows that the U.F.O. that you thought you saw was really controlled by a Pilot.

If I say, some Honda's are blue and I see a red Honda does it disprove that some Honda's are blue? I see some people here are presenting Phage contradictions.

You then said:

2. I spot a ufo AND find an alien controlling it. Does not disprove that "some are controlled by aliens.

Simple answer, No.

Where is this nonsense coming from?

reply to post by neoholographic


A simple question wasnt trying to offend you but you still didnt answer my question.

So how do you disprove that some are controlled by aliens?

reply to post by interupt42


What do you mean disprove?

I can falsify the ET hypothesis but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say disprove.

reply to post by neoholographic


"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials"

1. I spot a ufo but find out it was a top secret jet controlled by a pilot..

Does not make "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsifiable. In this particular case it was false but what about the next UFO and the next one and n+1?

2. I spot a ufo AND find an alien controlling it.

Does not make "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsifiable. In this case its true.

So how could you demonstrate "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsehood or falsifiable ?

reply to post by interupt42


Easy, you take the time to actually investigate the evidence. Most debunkers are too lazy to do this so they rather talk about unicorns creating rainbows.

Some UFO's are controlled by extraterrestrials can be falsified if you can falsify the evidence that shows these U.F.O. leave physical and trace evidence. That these U.F.O.'s show up on radar and can cause a nuclear weapon to malfunction. That these U.F.O.'s show that they're guided by intelligence and they move in ways that defy current understanding.

Sadly, most blind debunkers avoid actual evidence like the plague. Maybe you're not lazy like some others and you will actually take the time to read the evidence.

If you falsify this evidence then the hypothesis is weakened.

The null hypothesis:

Some U.F.O.'s aren't controlled by extraterrestrials.

The alternative hypothesis:

Some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

Here's the evidence that refutes the null hypothesis:

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...

This is just a small portion of the evidence.

If I say, some comets release an icy discharge when they fly by earth, does this mean I have to check every comet in order to falsify the hypothesis?

Of course not. That's just silly.

reply to post by neoholographic

If I say, some comets release an icy discharge when they fly by earth, does this mean I have to check every comet in order to falsify the hypothesis?

Yes, just like if you said No human lives forever that would be impossible to make scientifically falsifiable as well.

reply to post by interupt42


Sure you can. You need to talk to your boy Phage.

The hypothesis can be falsified in part. You just need to check comets as they fly by earth.

If you're correct we couldn't falsify theories that involve high cosmic rays.

Any rare event that occurs, scientist might as well not talk about it if you're correct. So of course it can be falsified.

You do know science last from generation to generation?

reply to post by Phage


Again, more laziness:

You said:

Oh, they've been investigated and what you end up with is eyewitness reports (not scientific) and a lot of missing information that could be used to falsify the case if it were available but isn't.

Of course eyewitness accounts are scientific. How else would you connect a U.F.O. to physical, trace evidence cases, radar cases and more?

Let's look at comets.

Before Newton's work occurred on comets, they were first seen by eyewitnesses. So what had to happen? Theories had to be constructed to explain the observed phenomena seen by EYEWITNESSES.

So to say eyewitnesses aren't scientific is just not the case. Especially when we're dealing with observed phenomena. How would you know there's an observed phenomena without an eyewitness?

What about Meteors and eyewitnesses? Did eyewitnesses help then?

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.

Astute observers? Could these astute observers be eyewitnesses to this event and they noticed this shower radiating from a single point in the sky. Then Scientist begin to study the storm which led to a better understanding of meteors.

I guess if you listen to Phage, those eyewitnesses were meaningless to science and they should have never been talked to.

Why would Scientist talk to these eyewitnesses? Eyewitness can't give you any information and they don't have anything to do with Science if you listen to blind debunkers.

PURE NONSENSE!!

reply to post by neoholographic


Not sure of your obsession with Phage as you mentioned him twice when responding to me? However i do agree with his point.


An unfalsifiable claim might be true and it might be false. However, there’s no possible observational evidence we could turn to in order to demonstrate that the claim is false.

unfalsifiable — there’s no observable state of affairs that would demonstrate that this claim is false. Not being able to prove it’s false doesn’t mean that the claim is false, just that no observation we make could settle the question.

As I demonstrated below and above regardless if an Alien is driving the ship or a human , its virtually impossible to settle the question as there are infinite future observations that can be made.

"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials"

1. I spot a ufo but find out it was a top secret jet controlled by a pilot..

Does not make "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsifiable. In this particular case it was false but what about the next UFO and the next one and n+1?

2. I spot a ufo AND find an alien controlling it.

Does not make "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsifiable. In this case its true.

So how could you demonstrate "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" falsehood or falsifiable ?