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.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
Let's start with your original claim, "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past....". I am unaware of any data that proves the existence of "otherworlder starships". Can you cite this data specifically? Exactly how are my notions about "testable" and "evidence" skewed?
Well, firstly; I didn't make that claim.
And, we are not talking about "proof", we are talking about evidence.
originally posted by: Tangerine
I checked and you are right. You did not make that statement; someone else did. However,you agreed with it so the questions stand. You still have not cited the data to which you refer and explained how my notions about "testable" and "evidence" are skewed. Facts are based on testable evidence only. Absent that, you are left with belief. Proof is a mathematical concept.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418
A complete analysis would be problematic. Deliberate hoaxes and misidentifications would have to be eliminated. Both are a problem with limited data. Of course, if you chose the default to be "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent alien visitation", you're good to go. But there are those who say "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent manifestations of demons."
See the problem?
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I checked and you are right. You did not make that statement; someone else did. However,you agreed with it so the questions stand. You still have not cited the data to which you refer and explained how my notions about "testable" and "evidence" are skewed. Facts are based on testable evidence only. Absent that, you are left with belief. Proof is a mathematical concept.
Don't remember "agreeing" with it...but...
There are a plethora of images from ISS and other space-borne cameras that aren't reflections, there is a serious amount of "space junk" that isn't junk.
All of these are evidence, all of them are testable. Go do your "due diligence", find the evidence you are looking for...
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.
originally posted by: Tangerine
How do a plethora of images from ISS translate to ""otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Unidentified images are not testable evidence that those objects are "otherworlder spaceships". We don't know what those images are. To claim that we do is a huge leap in logic.
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.
Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.
Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
How do a plethora of images from ISS translate to ""otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Unidentified images are not testable evidence that those objects are "otherworlder spaceships". We don't know what those images are. To claim that we do is a huge leap in logic.
Wow, such a jump in logic...I never equated these "unknowns" to ET craft...I said that the images, etc. were testable evidence; and they are.
O.K. Testable evidence of what, exactly? If you're claiming that captured images are testable evidence that images exist, sure. But what do the images prove except that images of unknown origin exist?
originally posted by: AnuTyr
Just wait till the fight over humanity heats up.
The reason there's been no invasion is because more than one E.T faction on the chess boards have been putting each other in check.
But this is a timed match. And when the numbers are nearly gone they will make their last moves out of desperation.
The timing is dependant on Earth. If a cataklysm happens soon then the time is up. But if we threaten ourselves with technology the time will also be up.
Yeah sure we are posing threats to ourselves. But i ment enough to actually make humanity scarce. Nothing has happened as of yet to cause a culling of humanity.
Now if A.I began converting everyone into cybermen. That would be a different story. And that's coming in our near future.
originally posted by: Tangerine
O.K. Testable evidence of what, exactly? If you're claiming that captured images are testable evidence that images exist, sure. But what do the images prove except that images of unknown origin exist?
originally posted by: Tangerine
I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.
Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.
Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.
How are opinions research?
What scientific methodology did you use to determine that that which you saw was an alien starship? What evidence did or anyone else acquire and how was it scientifically tested?
Do you mean to say hypothesis of alien starship propulsion or scientific theory (theorum)? If it's the latter, what methodology was used, what evidence was acquired, and how was it tested to reach the level of fact?
Alleged attempts by certain federal agencies to "sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug" doesn't constitute scientific research. I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?
Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.
Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.
Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.
Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.
What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.
Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.
Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.
How are opinions research?
What scientific methodology did you use to determine that that which you saw was an alien starship? What evidence did or anyone else acquire and how was it scientifically tested?
Do you mean to say hypothesis of alien starship propulsion or scientific theory (theorum)? If it's the latter, what methodology was used, what evidence was acquired, and how was it tested to reach the level of fact?
Alleged attempts by certain federal agencies to "sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug" doesn't constitute scientific research. I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?
Besides opinions...y6u can look at posters such as Karl12, whose posts sometimes depict reported UFO sightings. Everybody has opinions...even scientists who sometimes give rational/irrational opinions on the veracity of otherworlder starships.
I now call my explanation of starship propulsion as a theory --- based on the methodology of scientific deduction --- mainly based on my research into the feasibility of using a micro-mini black hole as the heart of the photon propulsion unit, onboard a superluminal capable interstellar starship.
originally posted by: Tangerine
MUFON has been cataloging sightings for years but, as far as I know, hasn't done anything with those lists of sightings. That's not a scientific study.
Your claim that "otherworlder starships" are visiting earth is not a scientific theorum (ie. theory). It's a hypothesis. Don't confuse the two.