Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

a reply to: tanka418

Yeah, yeah, no one ever recognizes your genius. They all laughed at you and called you mad. You'll show them. Blah blah blah....

a reply to: Astyanax

ITT - OP claims to be a theoretical physicist while spouting a lot of unscientific nonsense and exposing himself to be a complete fraud.

It's good for a laugh at least.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Yeah, yeah, no one ever recognizes your genius. They all laughed at you and called you mad. You'll show them. Blah blah blah....

tanka418 simply assigned a probability that "felt" right to him. He started by eliminating 80% of the stars in the Milky Way for a couple of (now obsolete) reasons.

Just another opinion in the end.

Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Intelligence is something I feel is not a needed evolutionary trait passed a point of carnivore skill level unless there are circumstances that drive it. In our case we are slow and weak and develop extremely good language abilities along with our opposable thumbs that allowed us to evolve our intelligence more, or go extinct. I really can't say this would be a typical norm for evolution to follow, and really has not been the case at all in 4 billion years of earth's evolutionary history.

Intelligence is a naturally occurring phenomenon; it appears as a consequence of living, and survival. Predators must become more intelligent in order to "out wit" their prey. Prey, if they wish to survive, must become more intelligent in order to "out wit" the predators.
based on observation, limited as it is, the predators seem to come out on top...

There is a big difference between outwitting your prey and going to the stars. One could even argue that too much intelligence is a bad trait or not needed trait for evolution to mature past what is necessary to outwit your prey.

a reply to: tanka418

I suppose it reinforces your delusion to pretend to yourself that no-one is clever enough to disprove your claims.

An essential attribute of any scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Usually, this means it makes predictions that can be tested. Sometimes a less rigorous demand has to be substituted: although a hypothesis makes no testable predictions, it may earn provisional acceptance if the methods and data employed in formulating it stand up to examination by experts in the field.

Since you will not allow anyone to review your data and methods, your claims are unfalsifiable. Thus the work of which you are so proud is rendered meaningless. It is storytelling, not science: a typical crank theory, without merit and without significance to anyone but you. It is a waste of time even to consider it.

You're the guy who pores over star catalogues, right? And thinks the Betty Hill 'map' is for real. I have already made my own judgement regarding your credibility. Have fun!

originally posted by: Astyanax
Since you will not allow anyone to review your data and methods, your claims are unfalsifiable.

You are wrong! All of my data, all of my work is right out in plain sight, albeit, unorganized at present...I don't feel I'm under any obligation, at this time, to organize my data and technique. Y'all can wait for the book..

By the way; your "judgment", as flawed, and unscientific as it is; is wholly irrelevant.

I like the way you cut and paste and then try to make it look like they're your words...kind of transparent though.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JeanPaul

I feel like I've spent a lot of time looking at the UFO topic and the case's that raises my eyebrow, if true, are when nuclear missile sites are allegedly disarmed. The explanation I come up with, is that it was Cold War propaganda. That the US was actually working on tech to disarm Russia's nukes and used the alien cover to hide behind. That the US may have had some sort of drone capabilities with an EMP device or something. They tested in on NATO allies/in the USA under the UFO cover and then sought to use it on Russia in order to neutralize their nuclear capabilities. Which the USG has been obsessed with since Russia obtained nukes. They still are.

The problem is that neither the military, nor tech industry would test anything in that manner.

The military would not use their hardware for such a test...not knowing the outcome it would be considered too risky...after all; what do you do if it works to well...all that hardware now dead, for ever!

I don't know what they would do. lol

I think those cases are some of the most intriguing, along with the alleged video footage of a UFO shooting some sort of beam or flying into the frame whilst a test missile was in the air at Vandenberg AFB. Did this actually happen? That's the thing.

I don't really agree with Bill Nye's attempt to debunk these claims (below)

www.youtube.com...

I think it's a weak argument (from Nye). IMO something happened and it's a question of either advanced US technology being tested, advanced Soviet technology being tested OR it is in fact alien technology. I don't think the Soviets were anywhere close to high speed drones with EMP/laser technology....the whole thing is bizarre but when it comes to the military and especially nukes it's not like an open democratic investigation can take place, at least not an official investigation.

At the end of the day stuff like this raises my eyebrow. I try to keep an open mind.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Sounds rather typical...Mr. Nye and many, many others are afraid to accept what is a natural and logical consequence of the data. So, they will do virtually anything to insulate themselves from what is the logical reality.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: JeanPaul

Sounds rather typical...Mr. Nye and many, many others are afraid to accept what is a natural and logical consequence of the data. So, they will do virtually anything to insulate themselves from what is the logical reality.

But, is there hard data? Is eye witness testimony and second hand witnesses hard data? Here in lies the problem and it's why I can't say to myself "yes, yes in fact aliens are visiting earth" let alone run around screaming it to the world. I lean towards advanced/classified military technology in combination with testing and PSYOPS but if it were aliens I'd be pretty happy.

originally posted by: Astyanax
You're the guy who pores over star catalogues, right? And thinks the Betty Hill 'map' is for real. I have already made my own judgement regarding your credibility. Have fun!

Stellar datasets...technically, they're Datasets...and yes I'm familiar with severl different datasets, but, that is something else entirely...

Ahhh yes, the "Hill map"...what's your problem with it? Or are you one of those that think that any ole collection of dots on a page will match something, somewhere? Do you really want to face that probability? I can assure you , you are NOT prepared for the hard math involved...period.

But, hey; why don't YOU do the math? Figure out the probability of 14 specific items out of ... how many billions of stars in this galaxy? Hmmmm...a quick check with Bing says 300 billion...

So that would be the probability of 14 specific stars out of 300 billion.

So please show us all just how "smart" you are, and render that value here for all to see and understand!"

You do know how to do that calculation...right??!!!!!

We all await your genius! But, just to help make this some sort of practical exercise; YOU GOT 24 Hours.! After which time you will either show us all just how right your are, or...you STFU!

Please note...all of you pseudo scientific wannabe skeptics This is actually a simple exercise, one that each of you should have learned in high school...it is not some "trick" question, nor any sort of trap; just a simple math question.

That I'm fairly sure none of you know how to calculate...

Anyway, at the appropriate time; I'll give you the correct answer...I promise none of you will like it.

And yes there is a point here...

originally posted by: JeanPaul
But, is there hard data? Is eye witness testimony and second hand witnesses hard data? Here in lies the problem and it's why I can't say to myself "yes, yes in fact aliens are visiting earth" let alone run around screaming it to the world. I lean towards advanced/classified military technology in combination with testing and PSYOPS but if it were aliens I'd be pretty happy.

Hard data? Depends on your definition of "hard data".

I've seen data that is hard enough to convince me, but if you ask anyone in this thread, they'll tell you there is absolutely no hard data to be had...

So, it will all depend on what you consider "hard data".

If your idea of "hard data" is a video produced in the 195's or 6's that show an apparent aircraft doing thing that are impossible today; then yes there is hard data.

If you mean analysis of trace evidence, then yes we have hard data.
If you mean DNA evidence that indicates something other than Terrestrial Humans...then yes we have that too.

However, be aware, that because of the actions of others; I'm not too inclined to go an search out the actual links for posting...So, while the data is there; for now you'll be on your own...for now.

When you do find something that "looks" good...please try to use real science in your evaluation...and a wee "rule of thumb" newer data is almost always more complete and accurate than old data. Many around here would prefer to use older, less complete data in their investigations...that almost NEVER works out very well.

originally posted by: tanka418

But, hey; why don't YOU do the math? Figure out the probability of 14 specific items out of ... how many billions of stars in this galaxy? Hmmmm...a quick check with Bing says 300 billion...

So that would be the probability of 14 specific stars out of 300 billion.

So please show us all just how "smart" you are, and render that value here for all to see and understand!"

You do know how to do that calculation...right??!!!!!

We all await your genius! But, just to help make this some sort of practical exercise; YOU GOT 24 Hours.! After which time you will either show us all just how right your are, or...you STFU!

Please note...all of you pseudo scientific wannabe skeptics This is actually a simple exercise, one that each of you should have learned in high school...it is not some "trick" question, nor any sort of trap; just a simple math question.

That I'm fairly sure none of you know how to calculate...

Anyway, at the appropriate time; I'll give you the correct answer...I promise none of you will like it.

As a math teacher, I know exactly how to calculate such probabilities.

I don't think whatever calculations you may have made are being called into question.

It is your arbitrary selection of "14 specific items" that injects your own personal bias into your calculations, thus rendering your claim moot.

I've pointed out that you start by dismissing 80% of the stars in our galaxy. When you made this decision, it might have made some sense based on knowledge current at that time. But at present, given new information (which I linked you to - but you claimed you couldn't understand it,) it makes no sense at all.

So your bell curve is meaningless and whether or not posters here can calculate probabilities is entirely beside the actual point.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
As a math teacher, I know exactly how to calculate such probabilities.

I don't think whatever calculations you may have made are being called into question.

It is your arbitrary selection of "14 specific items" that injects your own personal bias into your calculations, thus rendering your claim moot.

Well then, as a math teacher you know better...You also know that it doesn't matter IF those are arbitrary, so long as they "fit" the template...which they do, rather nicely...

So, I'm still asking for the probability of 14 items out of 300 billion...by the way I know "why" y'all don't want to actually acknowledge the probability that is the reality here...because y'all know that it is impossible for 14 dots on a page to match anything in the stars...thus you try to shift everything...

I've pointed out that you start by dismissing 80% of the stars in our galaxy. When you made this decision, it might have made some sense based on knowledge current at that time. But at present, given new information (which I linked you to - but you claimed you couldn't understand it,) it makes no sense at all.

So your bell curve is meaningless and whether or not posters here can calculate probabilities is entirely beside the actual point.

Yes, your class "M" stars...actually I've dismissed nothing, that sort of event exists only in your mind. Anyway, after reviewing the real data, as opposed to some dudes blog, I've decided to retract the notion that 85% of stars are class "M". Not because it isn't true, I actually have no doubts, but, rather because we can only consider "main sequence" stars; and, there are only 76% of main sequence that are class "M", and as I said; we only need to consider "Main Sequence"...any other star is in the process of dying...

You ever have a plant that didn't get enough sunlight? What happened to it?

You ever "see" what happens to an animal that does not get enough sunlight? What happened?

You ever see what happens to a pond of water that doesn't get enough sunlight? How about one that gets plenty? You should pay close attention to the differences...

As for the "bell curve"; sorry teach, but you get a "D-" on that one...mostly because you know better and are misleading others with your knowingly erroneous posts.

Perhaps you should have gone all the way and actually have a degree in Math...apparently you do not.

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes, your class "M" stars...actually I've dismissed nothing, that sort of event exists only in your mind. Anyway, after reviewing the real data, as opposed to some dudes blog, I've decided to retract the notion that 85% of stars are class "M".

You didn't read the link I gave. It is sourced: link to abstract
Couple of papers regarding the "earlier studies" mentioned in the blog you didn't read that showed how heat would be transferred in on a tidally locked planet near a red dwarf - resulting in year-round temperate zones and no loss of atmosphere (which was the previous prediction concerning these planets - the one your selections are based on.)
link
link

Will you now dismiss these as "some dudes blog?"
Most people would rather read the blog, BTW.

originally posted by: tanka418
Not because it isn't true, I actually have no doubts, but, rather because we can only consider "main sequence" stars; and, there are only 76% of main sequence that are class "M", and as I said; we only need to consider "Main Sequence"...any other star is in the process of dying...

Given the overwhelming number of red dwarfs and the recent information we've discovered (see above,) and adding to that the extremely long stability of these stars, I'd say you should recalculate as I suggested earlier.

originally posted by: tanka418
You ever have a plant that didn't get enough sunlight? What happened to it?

Fungi do just fine in the complete absence of light.

Besides, I already mentioned the chlorophyll problem. Do you think chlorophyll would be a requirement for exo life?
Are you aware of any reason that plants can't evolve based on the external conditions they arise in? I'm no biochemist. but I'd be willing to bet there are other means of gathering energy from starlight via exploitation of other organics.

The range of light spectrum that the human eye can see is exactly the range that can penetrate water. Why would that be? Isn't it because that's the environment in which the eye first developed?

A different spectra of light can be exploited just like the spectra the Earth gets. All it takes is different pigments.

This is the second time in a week I've felt justified in telling someone at ATS that they need to think "outside the box."

originally posted by: tanka418You ever "see" what happens to an animal that does not get enough sunlight? What happened?

I have "seen" animals that evolved to exist with no light whatsoever.

Did you ever "see" an animal that evolved on a planet with less light than Earth?

originally posted by: tanka418You ever see what happens to a pond of water that doesn't get enough sunlight? How about one that gets plenty? You should pay close attention to the differences...

You mean a pond of water containing living organisms that evolved to succeed in an environment of plenty of light in the 400 to 750 nm range of radiation?

originally posted by: tanka418As for the "bell curve"; sorry teach, but you get a "D-" on that one...mostly because you know better and are misleading others with your knowingly erroneous posts.

If my posts are so erroneous, why is it that you can't tell us the justification for your selections of star types most likely to develop intelligent life on their planets?

Like I said, calculations - assuming you did any - mean nothing here when you've pre-selected your winners. But you can go ahead and keep accusing people of not knowing how to calculate probabilities. Since you have no way of describing the set of outcomes, your probability "calculations" are meaningless.

For a simple example, I'll use throwing a die. We all know what a "die" is. We all know exactly what is on each face of every die. No matter how many dice you throw, it is a simple matter to calculate the various probabilities of the different outcomes because we know intimately every possible outcome.

On the other hand, your "probability" begins from position of not only not knowing anything about the set of possible outcomes, you actually eliminate outcomes that have lately been shown to be quite a bit more feasible that imagined earlier.

originally posted by: tanka418Perhaps you should have gone all the way and actually have a degree in Math...apparently you do not.

No, I lacked the foreign language requirement for a BS in Math. That's all I lacked though. Got the minor, with a Mechanical Engineering major.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Will you now dismiss these as "some dudes blog?"
Most people would rather read the blog, BTW.

No, actually I'm going to dismiss it because it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Firstly; I've already read your article, a short while ago, I have astronomy news feeds on my website....
Second; As I've already said, your 85% is invalid simply because it is a value of ALL stars, not just Main Sequence...meaning that you additional 10% are dead or dying stars that no longer support life...

Fungi do just fine in the complete absence of light.

Oh boy! thats really exciting; nowhere have I denied the possibility of life on your viable "M" class stars...And IF you had bothered to attempt to understand my previous posts you would understand that the probability of advanced sentient exists on some "M" class stars.

If my posts are so erroneous, why is it that you can't tell us the justification for your selections of star types most likely to develop intelligent life on their planets?

Actually that decision wasn't mine, it was originally done by Ms. Fish in her famous analysis of the original map. I saw no reason to change the spectral type due to the fact that there are no significant alternates available...in other words, the stars specified "fit" the template the best.

And in fact there is an alternate star, One that wasn't considered originally...Gliese 67 can be substituted with Upsilon Andromeda...Interestingly; Gleise 67 is on a list of interesting stars that "should" be searched, and Upsilon Andromeda has confirmed planets.

Like I said, calculations - assuming you did any - mean nothing here when you've pre-selected your winners. But you can go ahead and keep accusing people of not knowing how to calculate probabilities. Since you have no way of describing the set of outcomes, your probability "calculations" are meaningless.

You are aware that "preselecting winners" quite simply isn't possible, right? The reason for this is that the "preselection" must ultimately match a template; the original dots on the page...

So, sorry, no preselection possible...

You are making an awful lot of incorrect assumptions here...You are aware that I'm a software architect with over 40 years of experience, who is currently designing a robotic telescope system, specifically for exoplanet hunting? And that in that project, one of the resources is a sophisticated "computer vision" library? Prolly not so much on the library though...not common knowledge...more proprietary...

So...just how do you think I know the probability of 14 items out of 300 billion...a computation you haven't done...I presume, as a math teacher, you know how...

For a simple example, I'll use throwing a die. We all know what a "die" is. We all know exactly what is on each face of every die. No matter how many dice you throw, it is a simple matter to calculate the various probabilities of the different outcomes because we know intimately every possible outcome.

I really hate it when people who think they know about probability use that simple example...it actually has NO application in this discussion.

On the other hand, your "probability" begins from position of not only not knowing anything about the set of possible outcomes, you actually eliminate outcomes that have lately been shown to be quite a bit more feasible that imagined earlier.

lol...yes, I know of all the possible outcomes; though in all seriousness...our computers will only calculate to a max value of 10E308...And you should know as well as I do that the set of possible outcomes is 300 billion factorial...after all you are a math teacher.

And, no; I didn't eliminate anything, I used all 300 billion stars...well not for the pattern matching,,,we can only use cataloged stars for that...but, in as much as there is a match for the original "Hill" template...we kind of don't need to use all 300 billion.

I suppose, if it would make you feel better, we could use just the Hipparcos stars, since that match exists within that dataset...it is 117955 stars. So, the probability is very significantly improved for your view...14 items in 117955...

No, I lacked the foreign language requirement for a BS in Math. That's all I lacked though. Got the minor, with a Mechanical Engineering major.

Harte

Wow really?!? My school had no such requirement...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Will you now dismiss these as "some dudes blog?"
Most people would rather read the blog, BTW.

No, actually I'm going to dismiss it because it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Firstly; I've already read your article, a short while ago, I have astronomy news feeds on my website....
Second; As I've already said, your 85% is invalid simply because it is a value of ALL stars, not just Main Sequence...meaning that you additional 10% are dead or dying stars that no longer support life...

Which red dwarfs are dying?

originally posted by: tanka418

Fungi do just fine in the complete absence of light.

Oh boy! thats really exciting; nowhere have I denied the possibility of life on your viable "M" class stars...And IF you had bothered to attempt to understand my previous posts you would understand that the probability of advanced sentient exists on some "M" class stars.

You were the one that asked about plants in low light.

originally posted by: tanka418

If my posts are so erroneous, why is it that you can't tell us the justification for your selections of star types most likely to develop intelligent life on their planets?

Actually that decision wasn't mine, it was originally done by Ms. Fish in her famous analysis of the original map. I saw no reason to change the spectral type due to the fact that there are no significant alternates available...in other words, the stars specified "fit" the template the best.

I see. The Fish map.

Thanks anyway. I'm done now.

Harte

a reply to: tanka418

But, hey; why don't YOU do the math?

Because I have much better things to do with my life than waste it in counting dancing angels on the heads of pins.

Good luck with your book. A private publication, I presume?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

But, hey; why don't YOU do the math?

Because I have much better things to do with my life than waste it in counting dancing angels on the heads of pins.

Good luck with your book. A private publication, I presume?

Honestly... I'd probably buy it, if reasonably priced. Just to see if it contains actual math or data.

@Heart
@Astyanax
@draknoir2

Just about as I suspected...none of you have anything...
You call me on my science, and then fail utterly to follow through. You three are frauds in the worst sense, especially where it comes to science.

Do not criticize any experiencers, seekers of truth, nor any data presented...ever! You are wholly unqualified to evaluate anything associated with this search. Your actions here have demonstrated that you cannot accept any evidence regardless of it reality

So, now we get to actually "see" how the pseudo skeptic handles his science...he completely forsakes it and attempts to move forward without the benefit of science....logic, intelligence, and any other positive element that may lead toward truth.

@Heart; You are ware that any star that isn't main sequence is very, very old...and is thus somewhere in the process of dying? There's even a "wee code" built into the stars spType to indicate this...but, you never bothered to understand or even learn this...your bad.

@Astyanax that is seriously rich...You owe a physicist an apology! You condemnation of his question was truly stupid, and I feel you should apologize...it would be the right thing to do.

@draknoir2 When will you ever begin even "looking" at the associated data, as opposed to beating yourself up with those knees? Seriously dude; doesn't that hurt?

And this is what happens when you try to make a pseudo skeptic actually "look" at any associated data...we find they are completely unwilling to do so, and would prefer to remain wholly ignorant. And, when their Bulls**t is challenged, they run away to hide.

By the way...the data, the math that y'all can't find; has been there all along, you simply refuse to see it.

Willful ignorance is the hallmark of at least 3, now busted, "skeptics" What a shame...

@tanka418


If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Can't speak for the other @'s you listed, but I personally have made no such claims.