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.

 

The Evidence that's convinced me of ETs' Presence on Earth

page: 10
113
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Revelations29
Literally every single UFO thread is exactly the same. Just like this one. Other then witness testimonies and low quality youtube videos showing some glowing dots in the sky, there is no evidence of aliens flying UFO's over earth.

You cannot make a case simply out of witness testimony and laughable youtube videos.

UFOlogy is a religion, don't try to pass it off as anything more or less. There will never be any evidence that proves UFO are on Earth.

It's funny as well, because most of these UFO'ers are atheists. Which is not only ironic but sad.

Anyway, UFOology, big foot, all these things that haven't been proven or have any real evidence to speak of, are a tool of distraction. That's why "ancient aliens" is on the history channel. It's all about controlling reality and making it into a grand illusion.

This belief in UFOs is starting to turn into a mental illness.


Listen to my report on You Tube called "the story of Walt Willis".

You just earned a ticket to ride...




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: haven123
wheres the vid? from op


It stopped working for some reason, here it is again



That was the best interview I saw so far!

Thanks!



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: Sharted

I think most of hte cases you referenced have been systematically explained in painful detail. The ufo market is always producing more cases because that's their job, tha'ts how they make money. Everytime a case is explained, another one is produced. You know the arcade game where everytime you smash one, another pops up? The more I think about ufology, the more I think it's just delusional people wanting to believe in ET's and there's no way to disprove it because another case will always be produced.

Too tired to say anything more. Same ol' slop.


Okay, debunk the official CIA file and all of the astronaut recordings then. Saying something is debunked because there's a logical explanation for it is easy. The thing is, if just one of those files is telling the truth then aliens do exist. We don't need them all to be accurate!


Great, now all you have to do is prove one of is about ET life. So which one is ET life and what is your proof?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, only one was low on fuel. None of them including the pilot that crashed had oxygen iirc. It was too dangerous to climb because there is no oxygen, so none of them did, except him, because he was unfamiliar with the P-51 Mustang. Witnesses described watching his plane crash which 100% match a pilot running out of oxygen. Two other pilots saw the "object", and said it was very small, hard to see, and did not appear to be anything special.


Again, here is the thread with the full info about the Mantell case, with links and PROOF of each incident. This is the third time I've given you the link so hopefully you bother to read it this time before making moronic statements like "It's a balloon". Unlike you, that thread has documentation to back up its claims.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From your link ...

The two other pilots (other than Mantell) reported making visual contact with the object but said it was so small and far away they couldn’t identify it


So that confirms exactly what I said. The evidence does not support any sort of ET encounter whatsoever.


Mantell however, continued climbing to 30,000 feet. Anyone who knows anything about air flight and the atmosphere will tell you that without an oxygen mask or pressurized cabin (which wasn’t available at the time) you will black out from Hypoxia because the oxygen concentration levels are less at higher altitudes.


Again exactly what I said. He had no oxygen, was not familiar with the craft, and blacked out due to lack of oxygen. Seriously why do you keep posting me EXACTLY what I said? You obviously can't refute my points. Just stop.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted
Even if it was wrong, so what? I posted a few of the best ones, in my opinion. If some are inaccurate so what?

The so what is that what you posted is wrong and there is literally zero evidence of any ET encounters here. You admit you can't be certain ... and yet you claim you are certain. See the problem?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: haven123
wheres the vid? from op


It stopped working for some reason, here it is again



Thank you



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted
a reply to: DazDaKing
Of course, I can't prove it, but mathematics and logic suggest it's fact.

Can you share with me the equation you are using?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Just because qualitative information cannot be quantified to fit an existing paradigm does not mean ETs haven't visited Earth.

What kind of evidence would be required to prove it true or false?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: astech
Just because qualitative information cannot be quantified to fit an existing paradigm does not mean ETs haven't visited Earth.

What kind of evidence would be required to prove it true or false?

Which has nothing to do with anyone's argument. The argument is this is not evidence of ET visitation. The argument is that there is no "qualitative information" in favor of ET visitation, yet those like the OP label them having been here as fact.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: astech
Just because qualitative information cannot be quantified to fit an existing paradigm does not mean ETs haven't visited Earth.

What kind of evidence would be required to prove it true or false?
I can't explain every conceivable evidence which would be proof to my satisfaction, but let's say I'd find this a whole lot more convincing than a tiny light in the night sky coupled with some false radar returns:


That's a computer generated scene made by a studio, but if it was real, it would be pretty convincing if it flew over a major city where millions of people could see it like that.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Which has nothing to do with anyone's argument. The argument is this is not evidence of ET visitation. The argument is that there is no "qualitative information" in favor of ET visitation, yet those like the OP label them having been here as fact.


Given the cases, without a formed baseline or set precedence for an experience involving ETs or UFOs on Earth is, it is impossible to deny the cases as being extraterrestrial in nature. The cases can be viewed as fact, even if they aren't because it isn't something that can be measured or has complete definition, as of yet.


edit on 25-6-2014 by astech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: astech
If by that you mean that there's a 99.9999999999% chance that Mantell died chasing a balloon and a .0000000001% chance he died chasing an alien spaceship, then yeah I'd agree with that.

However it seems like the OP made a much bigger deal out of that .0000000001% chance than is justified, when the 99.9999999999% probability is far more likely.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That is what I mean, and you're 100% correct, it is dependent on the inference of information. However, without drifting too much I'd like to point out that there are various cases of encounters where the percentages would swing more favorably towards the counter and the information is still inferred incorrectly. This is why I highlighted that the qualitative narration of encounters has the largest influence of its acceptability as extraterrestrial (of course there are other factors also).

I think the person experiencing an encounter would be better positioned to decide whether it was alien or not.

BTW it would be more reassuring if the encounter was like the picture in your aforementioned post. Unfortunately, or thankfully, I don't envisage an encounter like that in the near future.
edit on 25-6-2014 by astech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: astech
I think the person experiencing an encounter would be better positioned to decide whether it was alien or not.
Not in my experience, for example the guy who filmed the UFO in Salida Co thought it was other-worldly but to me there's a zero percent chance it's an alien spaceship, I wouldn't even give it the .0000000001% chance in that case. I find people's perceptions to be extremely unreliable, and I fail the optical illusion tests as readily as anyone else because our brains are all easily tricked.


BTW it would be more reassuring if the encounter was like the picture in your aforementioned post. Unfortunately, I don't envisage an encounter like that in the near future.
It's hard for us to predict what future technologies will bring, but science fiction has done it before with the prediction of various things that have come to pass from submarines to airplanes to rocketships. What our current sci-fi predicts is that to travel the distances between stars, the ship will probably have to be immense. So while I admit that could possibly be a flawed expectation if applied to technology a million years more advanced, it's absolutely valid if applied to technology in the next few centuries as far as we can tell.

Of course it might not buzz the city that closely but you can see the ISS in orbit and if an interstellar craft was in a similar orbit and was much larger as we might expect, then it should be way more visible than the ISS.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: astech


I think the person experiencing an encounter would be better positioned to decide whether it was alien or not.

They can decide for themselves and I can decide for myself if I believe them or not. For instance, last night I had a magical encounter with super beings from dimension X. This occurred while I was sleeping but I believe that I left my body and had a real experience. For me, it was real. Maybe you believe it was real also. Obviously, the naysayer will say I was just dreaming. Well, they never experienced what l did.

this is what is known as a personal subjective experience. People have them and are allowed to make what they wish of them. When people want to insert their personal subjective experiences into everyone elses reality, thats a problem.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Can you share with me the equation you are using?

Yes, I was always taught that I had to show my work but let me take a stab at the math being employed here.

The universe is big. Lets call that U. We exist so we have a sample size of one out of a big U. There are exactly Zero confirmed known aliens. So (U+1)/0 = Advanced civilizations Visting.

Here is another. There are 20 cases presented that might represent alien encounters. It is pointed out that much of the info is wrong but who cares because one of them is probably true.
so 20 unknown values. One HAS to be something we don't really know actually exists because they are cool. Way cool.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

You can't back your whole case by just witness testimony.

Apparently these Aliens have been here for thousands of years. And there is still no hard evidence of them ever existing.

UFOlogy like I said before is a clever distraction tool, and nothing more.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: astech
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I think the person experiencing an encounter would be better positioned to decide whether it was alien or not.



Really?

In the 1990s I was driving through the English countryside and noticed a bright light in the evening mist fading for a while then glowing again. Suddenly it appeared to pick up pace and appeared to be beaming laser beams down onto the ground. It even disappeared and then reappeared a few times. The traffic was crawling to almost a standstill and the reason was obvious. It was an alien spacecraft. Well it was at least very eery and very bizarre....my mind could not make sense of it and I guess a number of other drivers also thought his was a UFO. In fact it was at that very moment in time to me.

It was only until I reached a point much nearer to the craft ,after a further 5 minutes or so driving ,that I and (presumably) other drivers on the road could clearly see a police helicopter conducting some kind of search with a high power beam and occasionally venturing round the back of the hillside out of sight. Had I have turned off and lost sight of the chopper then I probably would have still been puzzled by what I'd seen. Even though it was obvious to me a few minutes later and was now an IFO.

Here's another test for us all.

This is a video that shows possibly the last surviving fragments of a film from the recovery of alien bodies at Roswell. It even featured in the closing frames of the UK film "Alien Autopsy" in 2006.



Although this particular piece of film is not directly claimed by anyone to show such a thing, Ray Santilli, has claimed that a few frames of the original Roswell footage he acquired back in the 1990s ended up in the film.

Now you know it's background. Does this look genuine? Is it proof that ET crashed in the New Mexico desert in 1947?









edit on 25/6/14 by mirageman because: edit



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: astech

I'm just ignoring him now. He has five separate posts on this one page alone.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sharted
a reply to: astech

I'm just ignoring him now. He has five separate posts on this one page alone.


And there seems to b 5 valid points made.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join