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.
K-PAX-PROT
Are we seriously being asked in an auto suggestive way to reject every single UFO quote ever made by any individual in either a military, space or governmental intelligence position ...
lostgirl
Originally posted by JimOberg
The greatest challenge facing any novice UFO enthusiast, as I see it, is to devise a technique to use existing search engines to locate attempts to contradict or debunk famous stories of this type. As now implemented, these searches seem to only be able to locate echoes of previous unsourced assertions.
For example, if one were to speculate that the alleged Scott Carpenter quote may be entirely fictitious, how could a search string be formulated to locate a posting in support of that skeptical view -- so it could be balanced against the original claim?
Ditto the Afanasyev story. If there existed internet material trying to prove the quote is a hoax, how would anyone find it?
I googled: cosmonaut Afanasyev hoax...first site that came up had a comment (backed with pertinent info) in reply to the 'reported' quote, which pointed out that in 1979 Afanasyev had not yet even been accepted into the cosmonaut program, and then did not travel into space until around the mid-eighties...
...I then googled: cosmonaut Afanasyev biography...and found tons of genuine biographical resources which confirmed and expanded on this information....
I found timelines and descriptions about his missions, and nowhere was there ever any mention of a ufo siting...I have not posted specific links here, because I don't know how to do it, but just google what I did and you'll get to all the links I saw...
So, I don't know how that "Sightings" program got away with a totally false 'translation' of whatever story the guy was trying to tell, but in the 20-30 ufo sites I went thru, that program was the only source ever referenced for the story (and always 'quoted' exactly word for word) of that supposed siting...
I sure wish I knew what Afanasyev was really saying during that show...if anyone ever finds out, please let me know...
Sorry to quote my own post above, but I think it made a worthwhile contribution that no one is noticing, because I still can't figure out how to reply with 'quotes' properly...
Originally posted by JimOberg
K-PAX-PROT
Are we seriously being asked in an auto suggestive way to reject every single UFO quote ever made by any individual in either a military, space or governmental intelligence position ...
You don't even seem to 'get it' about what's under question, or should be. You unconsciously ASSUME that the internet quotations were actually MADE by the people named, when that is actually an unestablished assertion. Reasonable proof is required by reasonable people -- it shouldn't be assumed from the get-go.
law of acceptable averages
The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[citation needed]
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
law of acceptable averages
What exactly is the law of acceptable averages?
The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[citation needed]
en.wikipedia.org...
This is the foundation of your argument.
edit on 31-8-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Nice try but you forget that the foundation of my argument is the sheer volume or number of credible quotes that ARE true, surely even that percentage bodes well in favor of a credibility stamp again in favor that it takes just a small percentage to be genuine in order for a serious look at why these sources said such things.
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
K-PAX-PROT
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Nice try but you forget that the foundation of my argument is the sheer volume or number of credible quotes that ARE true, surely even that percentage bodes well in favor of a credibility stamp again in favor that it takes just a small percentage to be genuine in order for a serious look at why these sources said such things.
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
thanks for making that clear.
So -- since there are so MANY reports of contact with dead people, SOME of the reports MUST be true?
So -- since there are so MANY reports of human levitation, SOME of the reports MUST be true?
So -- since there are so MANY reports of mermaids, SOME of the reports MUST be true?
Why not?
By this logic, in a set of ten extraordinary claims, the more of them that are debunked, the HIGHER the odds that one or more of the remaining claims actually is authentic.
The alternate view is that the more of the ten that are debunked, the less likely any of the others are authentic.
Which corresponds to the real world?
K-PAX-PROT
they either said it or they did not or in the context it was meant. So which is it
Originally posted by Zaphod58
K-PAX-PROT
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
When did it become "Us against them" and not about finding out the truth? Finding the truth starts with finding if a quote is correct or not. It's like the game of Telephone I used to play as a kid. We'd have 10 people in a line, and it would start as something like "The orange is round", and by the 10th it was "white is the new black". Now you're looking at quotes that have gone through possibly a few hundred people minimum. Don't you think finding out if the quote is even correct is a good place to start?
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????
No clue but you should be able to figure it out with actual statistics if you have real information. It's not about debunkers vs non debunkers, it's about doing actual stats. If you have real numbers to provide, there is not much to argue about. Making up terms like "the law of acceptable averages" doesn't help your case.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
K-PAX-PROT
they either said it or they did not or in the context it was meant. So which is it
Not so simple there.
"I saw the cover from the hatch that was floating away. It looked like a UFO."
Can quite easily become:
"I saw the UFO" with the deletion of a few words. Don't you think you should check to see if they said it really was a UFO?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
And the point that was being made, and which is still true, is that instead of saying "Well this person is an astronaut so it must be true", is to verify verify verify. You can say law of averages all you want, or that debunkers have to be right ALL the time, but without verifying, as someone else said, this just becomes a movement, and not about finding the truth anymore.