GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
If there is a non-mundane explanation, now would be a good time to provide it.
- Status
If there is a non-mundane explanation, now would be a good time to provide it.
Wudang
BOFH
Shirley they can't be from Sirius!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Nobody can play you as well as you.
What exactly is the question that you want answered?
No. I am not claiming anything. I only want to you give me a a mundane explanation to all of Rramjet´s ufo examples. You all seem to be so certain that there is one. How about showing it instead of ridicule and asking questions.
Forget it. You can´t do it. You only have claims that there is mundane explanations but you think that you are in a position where you don´t however need to prove your point. So, what´s the point in this.
You have no point in your arguments or mundane explanations, since you can´t put anything into table.
Admit it.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Yes, you've proved that you don't understand the burden of proof. Try another line.
Stop asking questions. Just play the cards on the table that answer the mundane problem: What is the mundane answer to UFO phenomena? You can start with Rramjet´s UFO examples and continue to thousands of UFO reports in governments archives and then continues more and more.
You have a lot explain if you want all of us to thing that they are easily explainable with mundanity.
Go ahead. It should be easy, since you are so sure in your position - and don´t ask questions. Now is your time to answer, for a change.
I am sure you can´t. You probably ask something more. Remember that I am not making any claims here. I am only asking you some answers, since your arrogant behaviour would suggest you have the answer.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
They're all Unidentified. That's what the U in UFO means. Did you have some non-mundane explanation that you wanted to put forward?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Then you don't think any of the explanations are non-mundane?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I can see that you're still struggling with the concept of a null hypothesis, despite your asking for a scientific approach to this and you're still struggling with the concept of the burden of proof, despite claiming that UFOs are non-mundane.
Maybe you should have ufology explain them to you.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Of course not. Why would I? The null hypothesis works in this situation.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
One single explanation to suffice for all Rramjet's explanations? You're asking the impossible.
The plain fact is, we don't know, because there simply isn't enough information to determine the causes of all those sightings.
What you're doing is asking a loaded question. Your question carries the implication that all Rramjet's UFO examples are the result of a single cause. That implication ignores the fact that the vast majority of UFO sightings have been proven to have resulted from a great many different causes, all of which have been mundane. Even after 60-odd years of studying the phenomenon, not a single UFO case has ever been conclusively proven to have a non-mundane cause.
So we may not know the specific causes of all those sightings, but one thing we do know for certain is that no extraterrestrial space aliens have ever been proven to exist, therefore positing them as a cause would be indefensible by reason.
We never claimed to be 100% certain of any explanation, except that extraterrestrial space aliens have never been proven to exist, therefore positing them as a cause would be indefensible by reason.
There's nothing to show. What does a lack of information look like to you?
We're not making any claims. We're merely defaulting to the null hypothesis, because no physical evidence has ever been produced that can falsify it.
Where has anybody here ever said conclusively that all UFO sightings are mundane? All we've done is cite the null hypothesis, for a lack of evidence to the contrary.
It's a null hypothesis. Do you know what that means? Have you even been following this thread at all?
It's clear that even after well over a hundred pages over the course of 3 different threads, of people trying to explain what a null hypothesis is and how it works, some are still totally incapable or unwilling to understand the rather simple logic behind it.
We could posit hypothetical mundane causes all day long, but we can't prove or disprove them because there's simply not enough information.
Even though we can't prove any of our mundane causes any better than any non-mundane causes, at least our mundane causes represent things we know for certain to exist. And that counts for a lot. That is far more than anyone can say for the existence of extraterrestrial outer space aliens flying around in saucers.
Extraterrestrial outer space aliens flying around in saucers have never been proven to exist. Therefore, that explanation would require an irrational jump to conclusion, just as if we'd argued that UFOs are caused by gods, angels, faeries, ghosts, vampires, will'o the wisps, leprechauns, dragons, etc., etc.
Does that explanation make any kind of sense to you?
Last edited:
GregInAustin
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 168
I know this sounds like a broken record, but its not anyone else's burden to prove that ALL UFO examples have a mundane explanation. The default case is that all UFO's are mundane, and its up to the person who believes otherwise to provide evidence to support that belief.
The reason that mundane explanations are the default case is that 100% of all UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) reports that were eventually identified were indeed mundane. Not a single UFO report that later became an IFO (Identified Flying Object) has ever been non-mundane (aliens or otherwise.) Therefore, it is accepted, by default, that UFOs are mundane, until only 1 UFO-to-IFO is shown to be non-mundane.
So, even if we don't know what The Teheran UFO actually was, you cannot say it was Aliens, Fairies, Godzilla, Leprechauns, or Bigfoot Riding a Flying Unicorn, because we have no evidence that any of those things exist. You have to assume that if you Do Not Know what something is, its probably something mundane that you simply cannot identify.
Last edited:
That multi-quote function doesn't work for me.
- Status