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: 13
113
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You made the explicit claim that there was no indication of extraterrestrial influence.

So either describe how an extraterrestrial experience would occur or accept that the principles you are using can't measure the phenomenon itself.




posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: astech
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You made the explicit claim that there was no indication of extraterrestrial influence.

So either describe how an extraterrestrial experience would occur or accept that the principles you are using can't measure the phenomenon itself.
I'm not going to speak for razor but I don't follow your reasoning.

"Measuring the phenomenon" seems like it would be the job of the person making the claim of "extraterrestrial influence". there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what "extraterrestrial influence" is in the first place and there doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish an ET experience from any other experience other than something being unidentified and labeled "alien". Many times these alien experiences turn out to be something not alien but are identical to the ones still labeled alien.

So the phenomenon, to me, seems indistinguishable from normal misperception or subjective experience. No one could possibly describe how an extraterrestrial experience would occur since they aren't even known to exist yet. Essentially you are trying to identify something by saying it is something else that is not known to exist; "Unidentified objects are piloted by beings that we don't know exist."
edit on 27-6-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sharted

Personally...my take on Roswell is this:

Career Army Air Force officer claims the wreckage was that of a flying saucer. Then he changes his story (after the General shows up) to it was a weather balloon. Common sense would tell you that a career AAF would freakin know the difference between a weather balloon (or any other kind of balloon for that matter) and a freaking crashed flying saucer.

Classic case of the govt providing a complete and total BS cover story that totally lacks any logic whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: astech
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You made the explicit claim that there was no indication of extraterrestrial influence.

So either describe how an extraterrestrial experience would occur or accept that the principles you are using can't measure the phenomenon itself.

Yes. If you turn on the faucet and clear liquid comes out don't tell me it's Vodka. If you do tell me it's Vodka with zero evidence to support it I am going to tell you there is zero evidence of there being Vodka involved.

It's not up to me to describe how something ET related should look. It's up to you to show how a given event is unexplainable, or highly implausible without ET involvement.

The case presented in the OP about Thomas Mantell was factually incorrect, and the case itself has an extremely likely benign explanation that is supported by the facts.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sharted
Back on topic-

Roswell: Nothing but a story that snowballed into an "event".
- Weather balloon construction from the 40's:
Small beams and foil-like material.
- Advanced alien spacecraft construction from light years away:
Small beams and foil-like material.

Kinda coincidental, don't you think?

----------------------------------
Astronaut sightings:

I'm surprised you didn't toss in Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Coopers personal opinions about UFOs and aliens with the other astronauts. Their opinions somehow magically turn into facts for many believers.

Where are your sources for Scott Carpenters quote? A sound bite or something verifiable? He denied ever making that statement. Jim Oberg has covered a lot of the astronaut-UFO stories and is hands-on knowledgeable in regard to astronauts and NASA.
Below is a screen grab of a PDF from an email from Scott Carpenter to Jim Oberg about his UFO quote:

Source-
www.jamesoberg.com...

Also, in a speech Scott Carpenter gave in 2001 to a group of students, he made the following statement about "aliens":

"UFOs absolutely do exist, but flying saucers do not,” said Mr. Carpenter, who believes there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. “Fifty percent of UFOs are deliberate hoaxes, another 45 percent are (phenomena) from this planet not understood by the viewing public, and that leaves just 5 percent. We have no hard evidence of visitation from other planets."

Source-
enquirer.com...

----------------------------------
Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev-

His drawing of the supposed UFO he saw:

Wings, vertical stabilizer(s), exhaust ports, pilot windows, passenger windows. Looks more like a Revell model version of a top secret aircraft, than some intergalactic space faring alien spacecraft.

---------------------------------

In 1979 the former chief of NASA Communications Systems Maurice Chatelain came clean and confirmed that Armstrong’s and all other space exploration missions were followed by extraterrestrial beings most likely from our own solar system and that Armstrong had reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater.


First, with the moon landing happening on July 20, 1969, Chatelain is not even listed as being employed by NASA from Jan 1969 on:

How could he have heard Armstrong communicating with Houston control center if he never worked there at the time of the landing?
Source-
history.nasa.gov...

Next, Jim Oberg looked into Chatelains work history and found he worked for a NASA sub-contractor, but never worked there at the time of the moon landing:

"When James Oberg contacted Chatelain's employers he learned that Chatelain was no longer employed by them when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. If he was no longer an employee of a NASA sub-contractor then he could not have been present in any so-called "secret room" where he could overhear the confidential communications of the astronauts on the lunar surface. He was a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems. His status as the "head of communications" (as some UFOlogists have claimed), is entirely false."

Source-
ronrecord.com...

Next, this is a quote by Buzz Aldrin from Larry Kings show in 2007 "UFO'S: DO YOU BELIEVE?"-

On the panels discussion about UFOs and aliens-
Aldrin- I wish I could solve your dilemma. I think it's fascinating to hear both sides of this. I really do believe that you need to have very firm evidence and cover-up is something that just doesn't exist for very long. Sooner or later somebody is going to squeal on it or.... and I just can't believe that we would be covering up such a major, significant event as true evidence of beings from somewhere else.

Armstrong was notoriously shy when it came to doing television interviews. I think Buzz Aldrin's overall alien/UFO summation speaks to these claimed landed "spacecraft" on the craters rim. Something that absolutely would have been discussed and seen by Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.
Quote begins at 1:15 in the video below:
Source-
youtu.be...

Finally, ham operators picked up the signal and listened in on the communication between, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins while on the moon. One reason was to listen for any behind the scenes type of talk that maybe wasn't for the publics ears. Apparently, there was a 5 second delay worked into the TV broadcast to avoid any mistakes, bad language, etc. The ham operators heard everything in real time and unedited and heard nothing about UFOs, landed spacecraft, aliens, or anything strange.

------------------------------
Research- research- research- for yourself before CC&P-ing from UFO biased websites. This is a repeated, horrible practice by many believing members of this forum. They don't check sources and take everything at face value and do absolutely no research themselves. Even though I more or less have the same mindset that Jim Oberg does in regard to the UFO connection to aliens, I still search deeper and beyond his personal comments to see if what he says actually jibes. I don't take his research at face value either just because I want to believe it's true. Anyone truly searching for the truth will do the same. From the believer to the skeptic/debunker.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I have yet to see any evidence at all that definitively links a phenomenon or sighting or any other thing with a hypothetical alien of any kind.

The best argument anybody can come up with is: "WE'VE ELIMINATED ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES SO IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE BUT ALIENS!"

Which of course is just a lousy assumption and crappy logic all the way around.


Almost as lazy as the scientific explanation about why space itself is expanding faster than light speed. Their answer is: because it's expanding into nothingness and not governed by our laws of phsycis. A very lazy answer imo.Sceince itself tries to use math and logic to explaineverything but there are things that don't conform to any of our scientific laws. And don't even get me started on quantum entanglement. Science is useful and I will believe it over anything else, but it can't answer everything.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Sharted
Back on topic-

Roswell: Nothing but a story that snowballed into an "event".
- Weather balloon construction from the 40's:
Small beams and foil-like material.
- Advanced alien spacecraft construction from light years away:
Small beams and foil-like material.

Kinda coincidental, don't you think?

----------------------------------
Astronaut sightings:

I'm surprised you didn't toss in Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Coopers personal opinions about UFOs and aliens with the other astronauts. Their opinions somehow magically turn into facts for many believers.

Where are your sources for Scott Carpenters quote? A sound bite or something verifiable? He denied ever making that statement. Jim Oberg has covered a lot of the astronaut-UFO stories and is hands-on knowledgeable in regard to astronauts and NASA.
Below is a screen grab of a PDF from an email from Scott Carpenter to Jim Oberg about his UFO quote:

Source-
www.jamesoberg.com...

Also, in a speech Scott Carpenter gave in 2001 to a group of students, he made the following statement about "aliens":

"UFOs absolutely do exist, but flying saucers do not,” said Mr. Carpenter, who believes there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. “Fifty percent of UFOs are deliberate hoaxes, another 45 percent are (phenomena) from this planet not understood by the viewing public, and that leaves just 5 percent. We have no hard evidence of visitation from other planets."

Source-
enquirer.com...

----------------------------------
Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev-

His drawing of the supposed UFO he saw:

Wings, vertical stabilizer(s), exhaust ports, pilot windows, passenger windows. Looks more like a Revell model version of a top secret aircraft, than some intergalactic space faring alien spacecraft.

---------------------------------

In 1979 the former chief of NASA Communications Systems Maurice Chatelain came clean and confirmed that Armstrong’s and all other space exploration missions were followed by extraterrestrial beings most likely from our own solar system and that Armstrong had reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater.


First, with the moon landing happening on July 20, 1969, Chatelain is not even listed as being employed by NASA from Jan 1969 on:

How could he have heard Armstrong communicating with Houston control center if he never worked there at the time of the landing?
Source-
history.nasa.gov...

Next, Jim Oberg looked into Chatelains work history and found he worked for a NASA sub-contractor, but never worked there at the time of the moon landing:

"When James Oberg contacted Chatelain's employers he learned that Chatelain was no longer employed by them when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. If he was no longer an employee of a NASA sub-contractor then he could not have been present in any so-called "secret room" where he could overhear the confidential communications of the astronauts on the lunar surface. He was a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems. His status as the "head of communications" (as some UFOlogists have claimed), is entirely false."

Source-
ronrecord.com...

Next, this is a quote by Buzz Aldrin from Larry Kings show in 2007 "UFO'S: DO YOU BELIEVE?"-

On the panels discussion about UFOs and aliens-
Aldrin- I wish I could solve your dilemma. I think it's fascinating to hear both sides of this. I really do believe that you need to have very firm evidence and cover-up is something that just doesn't exist for very long. Sooner or later somebody is going to squeal on it or.... and I just can't believe that we would be covering up such a major, significant event as true evidence of beings from somewhere else.

Armstrong was notoriously shy when it came to doing television interviews. I think Buzz Aldrin's overall alien/UFO summation speaks to these claimed landed "spacecraft" on the craters rim. Something that absolutely would have been discussed and seen by Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.
Quote begins at 1:15 in the video below:
Source-
youtu.be...

Finally, ham operators picked up the signal and listened in on the communication between, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins while on the moon. One reason was to listen for any behind the scenes type of talk that maybe wasn't for the publics ears. Apparently, there was a 5 second delay worked into the TV broadcast to avoid any mistakes, bad language, etc. The ham operators heard everything in real time and unedited and heard nothing about UFOs, landed spacecraft, aliens, or anything strange.

------------------------------
Research- research- research- for yourself before CC&P-ing from UFO biased websites. This is a repeated, horrible practice by many believing members of this forum. They don't check sources and take everything at face value and do absolutely no research themselves. Even though I more or less have the same mindset that Jim Oberg does in regard to the UFO connection to aliens, I still search deeper and beyond his personal comments to see if what he says actually jibes. I don't take his research at face value either just because I want to believe it's true. Anyone truly searching for the truth will do the same. From the believer to the skeptic/debunker.



Weather balloons weren't top secret, even if they were designed to spy on the soviets; like they would give a #. Oh noes the balloon is gonna destroy us! Then the army cloaked it in secrecy and recovered every single piece of debris when it crashed, standard precudre for such an insignificant object eh? People here calling my posts erroneous and to them I say: I wasn't there, neither were you so please stop throwing insults at my post and feel free to make your own thread if you can provide better info. Jesus, it's turning into a moronoic debate of skeptics vs believers. Neither side is going to win so why keep the dumb arguments going. It's like a religious/political debate. I clearly stated it was "my opinion". And yes, Google is where I obtained this data but I bet the next lame tactic is to say everything on Google is false, just like the media. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of truth online. The CIA file I posted at the end of the OP hasn't even been mentioned yet, mainly because nobody can refute it. Oh I suppose there's no evidence it was ET, but I'm sure if a Russian plane was hovering over a US air force base it wouldn't be doing so for 49 before being blown up.If it was a balloon then the pilot obviously needed his eyes checked and therefore wouldn't ever have become a pilot in the first place. Circumstantial evidence but quite overwhelming evidence if you stop being skeptical at every possible opportunity. The CIA file also says such instances like these are COMMON. Yet this isn't proof. People who were at Roswell and saw an alien being also isn't considered proof. One has to assume that no skeptic here will ever accept any kind of proof l



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShartedAnd yes, Google is where I obtained this data but I bet the next lame tactic is to say everything on Google is false, just like the media.

How is that possible when all I had to Google and within 5 minutes I found numerous errors?


Unfortunately, there is also a lot of truth online. The CIA file I posted at the end of the OP hasn't even been mentioned yet, mainly because nobody can refute it.

Honestly did not even look at it. Once I saw you were simply posting erroneous information I saw no need to look any further. Especially when you kept linking me to another ATS post which was saying exactly what I was saying. I will take a look now.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I am completely unable to find any information on this online.

I can not find any credible websites that even mention it, so it's veracity is in question (though I do believe it's real), and the context is impossible to decipher without more information.

Either way, having read the memo, nothing in that CIA report indicates ET life. Especially part 3 which states it's reasonable to say more information will be available when they make their full report on the incident. If it was ET piloted UFO what more info would be gathered? Most likely it was a Russian craft they had not identified, this is a preliminary report, and the FULL report had information that does not jive with an ET connection so it's not talked about. Then there is the fact that apparently they regularly make contact which means there are hundreds of people who would know about ET life if this was ET life, and no one has come forward. Sorry, probably Russian aircraft. This was 1955.

Conclusion: Probably a real memo and appears to have zero to do with an ET connection.
edit on 28-6-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sharted


I clearly stated it was "my opinion".

and you clearly state some things as facts:

Then we have some FOI files that confirm the existence of intelligently-controlled aircraft that were not manned by humans.

I missed the part of the memo of "confirmed non-human intelligence".

And yes, Google is where I obtained this data but I bet the next lame tactic is to say everything on Google is false, just like the media.

Google is a search engine. Yes, the internet is full of bad information. In fact, stuff that I post on ATS appears on Google searches. If you google "zetarediculian", you will be presented with the most fascinating array of well formed whimsical postings ever.

Yet this isn't proof.

No, I am afraid not.


People who were at Roswell and saw an alien being also isn't considered proof
Its only proof that people can say things. For instance people who were at Roswell also said that the people that say they saw aliens there were lying. Since I said this and can now google it, it is now proof that Roswell is BS.


edit on 28-6-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I am completely unable to find any information on this online.

I can not find any credible websites that even mention it, so it's veracity is in question (though I do believe it's real), and the context is impossible to decipher without more information.

Either way, having read the memo, nothing in that CIA report indicates ET life. Especially part 3 which states it's reasonable to say more information will be available when they make their full report on the incident. If it was ET piloted UFO what more info would be gathered? Most likely it was a Russian craft they had not identified, this is a preliminary report, and the FULL report had information that does not jive with an ET connection so it's not talked about. Then there is the fact that apparently they regularly make contact which means there are hundreds of people who would know about ET life if this was ET life, and no one has come forward. Sorry, probably Russian aircraft. This was 1955.

Conclusion: Probably a real memo and appears to have zero to do with an ET connection.


Funny you couldn't find it online considering there are a few threads dedicated to it here on ATS. Anyway, I'm done talking to you and other people just wanting to show how wrong and stupid I am. I have my beliefs, you have yours. Please respect my opinions and I will respect yours.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sharted

Even skeptics get confused sometimes.


The official Air Force reports on Roswell are available for free here : Download Free PDF Roswell Report 1994


Roswell Report Case Closed (1997)


You will discover that a number of photographs are of a confirmed bona-fide spacecraft and the first one was taken at Roswell AAF base.

































In this video about 4:30 in Bill Nye (Science guy) is arguing hard that the images are fakes and it doesn't look like a spacecraft.





You can make your own mind up on what you are actually looking at or read the report to confirm it.

Once you check the facts all will be apparent.

edit on 28/6/14 by mirageman because: edit



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sharted

I have my beliefs, you have yours. Please respect my opinions and I will respect yours.

I think the overall problem is not with your beliefs or opinions, its that you seem content saying stuff like "CIA documents confirm nonhuman intelligence" which is more akin to a false statement rather than an "opinion".

There is also no such thing as an "opinion" with math and probability. For instance, the probability of heads or tails in a coin toss is 50%. Basic-Mathematics.com
Its not my opinion that its a 50% chance and I really cant have an opinion that its something other than 50%.
So when you say

Mathematics, more specifically probability, suggests that life does exist in abundance in the universe.

Is that your opinion or are you saying that's a fact? Apparently you are stating that this is a fact

but mathematics and logic suggest it's fact.

So when you say "more specifically probability" you must have some idea of what you are talking about, because I don't. Is it merely your opinion that these are opinions?



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: astech
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You made the explicit claim that there was no indication of extraterrestrial influence.

So either describe how an extraterrestrial experience would occur or accept that the principles you are using can't measure the phenomenon itself.

Yes. If you turn on the faucet and clear liquid comes out don't tell me it's Vodka. If you do tell me it's Vodka with zero evidence to support it I am going to tell you there is zero evidence of there being Vodka involved.

It's not up to me to describe how something ET related should look. It's up to you to show how a given event is unexplainable, or highly implausible without ET involvement.

The case presented in the OP about Thomas Mantell was factually incorrect, and the case itself has an extremely likely benign explanation that is supported by the facts.


Sure, and the local radio station got a call from D.C. where they were told to shut up because their FCC permit could be revoked.

Lay off the Vodka fella...



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
So when all the clever talk or debunking of ANY possible ET origins for even ONE UFO encounter by credible witnesses is done it fails to answer the one glaring problem and that problem is that no one can say 100% for sure and even offer evidence to prove beyond all doubt that ET intelligences do not exist. For that glaring reality will not go away until prove beyond all doubt is provided that ET intelligences do not exist, my perception is clear on this reality and that is that the possibility of even one UFO case having a ET origin remains just that a possibility until the evidence is provided that this ET possibility is not possible because indisputable evidence proves that ET intelligences do not exist.

Science in its current understanding does not know all there is to know and any one claiming it does are usually the ones to avoid and i will apply that to my primary argument that the ET possibility for some UFO cases remains so until that possibility is refuted with the appropriate evidence, that those cases deemed after credible investigations do show objects to have exhibited signs of intelligent control, advanced manoeuvrabilities and sudden feats of accelerations, stop, starts and advanced speeds of travel that no human pilot could withstand .Have there been any such cases , yes there have been and had it not been for these particular cases on record , you know the ones the the naysayers avoid because of a real lack of explanation to them i would have been on the side of those very naysayers who reject any notion of any possible ET origins to even one credible UFO cases that contain the above stimuli out lined above.At present no one is in any real credible position to refute the possibility, yes again the POSSIBILITY that ET intelligences exist and that possibility cannot be included to the possibility that just one case could very well be ET in origins, remember the naysayers need to be right ALL the time while it just takes ONE case and how many cases could be ET if the possibility perception is included to them, no smoke without fire.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: K-PAX-PROT

So when all the clever talk or debunking of ANY possible ET origins for even ONE UFO encounter by credible witnesses is done it fails to answer the one glaring problem and that problem is that no one can say 100% for sure and even offer evidence to prove beyond all doubt that ET intelligences do not exist. For that glaring reality will not go away until prove beyond all doubt is provided that ET intelligences do not exist, my perception is clear on this reality and that is that the possibility of even one UFO case having a ET origin remains just that a possibility until the evidence is provided that this ET possibility is not possible because indisputable evidence proves that ET intelligences do not exist.

except nobody has said ET visiting is not possible. I really have not seen anyone say that. It is impossible to prove a negative. What form of indisputable evidence could possibly show ET intelligence does not exist? Most skeptics know what "possibility" means but the word is often confused with probability or greatly overvalued and misinterpreted by folks that believe ET is here now. I believe ET visitation is possible and so do you but somehow I think it means something entirely different for you than it does for me.



edit on 28-6-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

edit on 28-6-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
dp


edit on 28-6-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The way I see it we have people that come to this forum to share some strange first hand report of a strange anomaly.

What they get for their efforts is a lot of grief from someone calling themselves a skeptic, but in truth they are a pseudo-skeptic that say they are just looking for proof.

That is a self delusional lie on the part of the so called "skeptic".

Good scientific inquiry does not and never will work within that perimeter.

These folks are suffering from some mental disorder and others on this forum are feeding their needs by engaging them.

They are mental midgets in the world of science.

Don't feed the monkeys!



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: waltwillis


The way I see it we have people that come to this forum to share some strange first hand report of a strange anomaly.


Yes, they are interesting stories. Some are sincere, others aren't. Some obviously have other issues. Basically they are people posting on a open public forum. Unfortunately, there is not much value there. Kudos to you for sharing your story




top topics



 
113
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join