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.
Never heard of a rainbow that travels hundreds of miles in the sky..making gravity defying stunts.
Unless one has an inner motive, I seriously doubt people would be close-minded to even deny the possibility of ufos being Alien in origin.
1. personal distaste of the phenomenon
2. the be-all know-it all folks who mock everything that sounds u...f....o
3. allergic to unknown phenomenon
4. it doesn't fit your world view
5. shameful to admit it because you hung in there..trying to debunk it all your life( i know!)
6. you are all 'online' skeptics..in reality hiding behind your sheets praying for an alien invasion
Don't forget Bigfoot.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Phage
Don't forget Bigfoot.
Lets not. There are some very credible reports of Bigfoot and other evidence. How does neo reject the same evidence when it comes to Bigfoot? Witnesses aren't idiots when it comes to UFOs but turn into drooling idiots when they report bigfoot?
"Most researchers who study the bigfoot subject will point to the abundance of witnesses as the factor they found most compelling about the mystery when first becoming acquainted with it. Over the course of time, bigfoot researchers meet enough eyewitnesses to realize there are indeed many, many eyewitness across the continent who are indeed very credible. Often there are multiple witnesses to a given sighting or encounter.
There are, in fact, way too many eyewitnesses for this phenomenon to be purely imaginary, as skeptics assert. With such an abundance of eyewitnesses, who are so dispersed across the continent, and dispersed across the decades, the alternate skeptical explanation that the sightings are the result of hoaxers, in whole or even in large part, becomes much less likely.
Researchers eventually come to realize that if there are indeed so many credible eyewitnesses across the land, then the species they so consistently and emphatically describe probably exists also."
If you notice, the blind debunkers can't debate the evidence for the ET hypothesis.
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.
If you notice, the blind debunkers can't debate the evidence for the ET hypothesis.
but I suspect that most anyone who's had a college-level Introduction to Statistics course can see the error in that reasoning.
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.
It's simple.
I'm skeptical of bigfoot because he hasn't been caught.
I suppose what I'm asking is this: To what end do you want the world's acceptance of the ET hypothesis for UFOs to be? Why do you see it as so important to use the null hypothesis against alien visitation to prove the alternate hypothesis for Alien visitation?
Where are you going with this method of trying to prove the ET hypothesis?
Why would Aliens be caught or easily evade capture when they possess the technology to malfunction nuclear sites and evade our planes?
I know you have an all or nothing view that makes no sense but you can at least try to let a little common sense into the picture.
You just show that you can't refute the evidence for the ET hypothesis because you keep bringing up bigfoot.
For instance, if over the next 50 years we test every comet that flies by earth for an icy discharge and we don't find an icy discharge then the theory would be falsified.
Correct. The evidence I provided for Bigfoot pretty much confirms that bigfoot is real. The "evidence" you provided for ET is sad.
Bigfoot has nothing to do with the evidence for the ET hypothesis.