Dec 16, 2018 08:47 PM
(Dec 16, 2018 05:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Yes you are. You are presuming it's not man-made or natural...even though we only know for a fact that the man-made and natural exist. You're discounting every reasonable explanation in favor of completely unfounded speculation.Quote:The fact is that unidentified literally means you cannot assume to know what it is not any more than what it is. No witness is reliable, especially when extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes, thousands of accounts with the vagaries of human perception in a world polluted with common knowledge of such accounts. It's called priming.
But I'm not the one assuming to know what it is. You are, and continue to do so in light of the fact that it defies anything manmade or natural.
Quote:It remained in place for 2-3 minutes. You cannot dismiss this detail of the account to suit your conclusion. This fact refutes it being any kind of military aircraft, as that would have flown over in a matter of seconds. Add to that the fact that it made no noise, and that it has no engines or fuselage, and well, you have a ufo, a truly unidentified flying object.Those are not facts, they're hearsay..."information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Those are not more compelling than a "fish story", since the pictures do not substantiate those details.
Again, no one is disputing that it is an unidentified flying object. But you just keep arguing that straw man in a vain attempt to buoy your ad hoc definition.
Quote:And yes eyewitnesses are reliable. We rely on them everyday in the news, in criminal courts, and in traffic courts. People really do see accurately what is right in front of them. The fact that you are arguing that they do not is only your desperate ploy to dismiss the report in favor of your latest assumption about what it is identified as. Your confirmation bias is obvious as hell. Face it Syne. This is a ufo, and it's the real deal. Read the article I posted on 3 more compelling sightings. You may find yourself actually believing in ufos.I was wondering how long it would take you to start this old canard. And it completely belies every study done on the reliability eyewitnesses...not that you would every read them. The news is pure rumor without corroborating facts; criminal and traffic courts build their cases on substantiating evidence (again, the more serious, i.e. extraordinary, the charge the more substantive the evidence needed). The facts are that witnesses are unreliable because people are susceptible to subconscious priming, source misattribution, reconstructive memory, confirmation bias, etc..
Again, no one has identified it. Quit lying. I'm just making reasonable assumptions based all all know facts, while you are making wildly speculative assumptions (that expressly deny anything reasonable...while making up your own, special definition of "fact") that cannot be justified.
Again, ad infinitum, it is a UFO. No one disputes that. But you cannot claim to know it's not man-made while asserting it is completely unidentified. That's just flat out contradictory.
Quote:Oh and here's the thing about your much touted "null hypothesis". It's not what you claim it to be:
"With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis that says there is no statistical significance between the two variables. It is usually the hypothesis a researcher or experimenter will try to disprove or discredit."
"Null hypotheses are never accepted. We either reject them or fail to reject them. The distinction between “acceptance” and “failure to reject” is best understood in terms of confidence intervals. Failing to reject a hypothesis means a confidence interval contains a value of “no difference”."---
https://www.google.com/search?q=null+hyp...e&ie=UTF-8
Apparently you don't understand what you read. You can only "try to disprove or discredit" what is accepted as or presumed a given. Otherwise, you'd need to prove the null hypothesis before you could even try to disprove it, which would be foolishly and uselessly redundant.
Null hypothesis--the hypothesis under test, denoted H0. The null hypothesis is usually stated as the absence of a difference or an effect. It functions as what debaters call a "straw man", something set up solely to be knocked down. It is usually the investigator's intention to demonstrate an effect is present. The null hypothesis says there is no effect. The null hypothesis is rejected if the significance test shows the data are inconsistent with the null hypothesis. Null hypothesis are never accepted. We either reject them or fail to reject them. The distinction between "acceptance" and "failure to reject" is best understood in terms of confidence intervals. Failing to reject a hypothesis means a confidence interval contains a value of "no difference".
- http://www.jerrydallal.com/lhsp/sigtest.htm
The null hypothesis is always the setup to test an assertion. Here, your assertion is that UFOs are not man-made or natural. The null hypothesis you are attempting, in vain, to reject is that UFOs are mundane. Seeing as the mundane makes up the vast majority of our experience and knowledge, it is the default assumption. The burden is on you to demonstrate the extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence, not on me to demonstrate the ubiquitously self-evident mundane.
You don't seem to be intellectually honest enough to even admit the null hypothesis is a possibility, which betrays your heavy confirmation bias and blind faith.
