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: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Tangerine
The title of the report was "UFO's and Defense, what we must be prepared for?"
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
So, 5-10% of all unidentified flying objects remain unidentified. UNIDENTIFIED does not mean extraterrestrial. It means UNIDENTIFIED. Now explain to me, please, how jumping from unidentified to extraterrestrial while skipping over testable evidence proving extraterrestrial origin is logical.
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Tangerine
The title of the report was "UFO's and Defense, what we must be prepared for?"
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
So, 5-10% of all unidentified flying objects remain unidentified. UNIDENTIFIED does not mean extraterrestrial. It means UNIDENTIFIED. Now explain to me, please, how jumping from unidentified to extraterrestrial while skipping over testable evidence proving extraterrestrial origin is logical.
Maybe the title of their report gave me a clue.
Again, here it is "UFO'S AND DEFENSE, WHAT MUST WE BE PREPARED FOR" ?
Do you think they would use words like "what must we be prepared for" if they thought they were looking at space junk? They would use those words for swamp gas, temperature inversions? But they ruled all of those out, didn't they?
So, you refuse or can't answer my question?
They ruled out any EARLTHLY explanations.
I'm waiting for your take on the truly unidentifiable 5% - 10% of all UFO sightings.
Here is a link again for those that missed it, the explosive COMETA report published by high ranking military, scientific and governmental officials in Europe:
COMETA report on UFO's
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Tangerine
The title of the report was "UFO's and Defense, what we must be prepared for?"
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
So, 5-10% of all unidentified flying objects remain unidentified. UNIDENTIFIED does not mean extraterrestrial. It means UNIDENTIFIED. Now explain to me, please, how jumping from unidentified to extraterrestrial while skipping over testable evidence proving extraterrestrial origin is logical.
Maybe the title of their report gave me a clue.
Again, here it is "UFO'S AND DEFENSE, WHAT MUST WE BE PREPARED FOR" ?
Do you think they would use words like "what must we be prepared for" if they thought they were looking at space junk? They would use those words for swamp gas, temperature inversions? But they ruled all of those out, didn't they?
So, you refuse or can't answer my question?
They ruled out any EARLTHLY explanations.
I'm waiting for your take on the truly unidentifiable 5% - 10% of all UFO sightings.
Here is a link again for those that missed it, the explosive COMETA report published by high ranking military, scientific and governmental officials in Europe:
COMETA report on UFO's
How could they possibly rule out earthly explanations when they're talking about UNIDENTIFIED flying objects? Do you understand that is is impossible to prove a negative.
Certainly, this subject still sometimes elicits amused skepticism, if not a certain mistrust with regard to those who mention it seriously, but in the absence of explanations for the phenomena sighted, the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin can no longer be ruled out.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Did I say that what they're saying isn't true? no.
we have no evidence to either support or debunk their claims, so I guess we can assume they at least believe in what they're saying, and that alone should guarantee further investigation.
Try not to let your emotions get the best of you bro, I mean the best for everyone, and think we are all one on some level or another, so I have no hate commin from my end.
I looked at your post and didnt see it reflect anything but distaste for Greer, when he isnt even the one doing the Disclosure in the videos. He may be there but its not about him, I would at least expect people to comment on the material the military is talking about if they are going to comment.
When having a discussion on military disclosure and no one mentions what the military is disclosing it takes away from a informative conversation.
Sure many may dislike Greer but hes not the main one speaking in the videos, however most of the comments are about him, rather than the content of the disclosures of the military persons.
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Tangerine
The title of the report was "UFO's and Defense, what we must be prepared for?"
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
So, 5-10% of all unidentified flying objects remain unidentified. UNIDENTIFIED does not mean extraterrestrial. It means UNIDENTIFIED. Now explain to me, please, how jumping from unidentified to extraterrestrial while skipping over testable evidence proving extraterrestrial origin is logical.
Maybe the title of their report gave me a clue.
Again, here it is "UFO'S AND DEFENSE, WHAT MUST WE BE PREPARED FOR" ?
Do you think they would use words like "what must we be prepared for" if they thought they were looking at space junk? They would use those words for swamp gas, temperature inversions? But they ruled all of those out, didn't they?
So, you refuse or can't answer my question?
They ruled out any EARLTHLY explanations.
I'm waiting for your take on the truly unidentifiable 5% - 10% of all UFO sightings.
Here is a link again for those that missed it, the explosive COMETA report published by high ranking military, scientific and governmental officials in Europe:
COMETA report on UFO's
How could they possibly rule out earthly explanations when they're talking about UNIDENTIFIED flying objects? Do you understand that is is impossible to prove a negative.
Why are you trying to twist the rules of logic? People use logical inferences everyday in their lives, they are accepted in all walks of life, scientific, judicial, educational.......etc.
Anyway, it is not just me saying it, it is the high ranking officials in the COMETA report:
Certainly, this subject still sometimes elicits amused skepticism, if not a certain mistrust with regard to those who mention it seriously, but in the absence of explanations for the phenomena sighted, the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin can no longer be ruled out.
Source
So I'm curious as to why these high ranking, respected, credible officials are willing to consider the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, yet you are not?[/quote
-------------
I must have missed the logical part in the inference.
In science, testable evidence is used to determine fact. It often doesn't produce results that are implied and inferred by expectations or desires. That's exactly why testable evidence is relied upon.
Can you be specific about which high-ranking, respected, credible officials? For example, the person who has repeatedly been referred to as the Minister of National Defence is not. Respected? That's a matter of opinion. Credible? That's also a matter of opinion.
I didn't notice that they were "willing to consider the extra-terrestrial hypothesis". It seemed to me that they reached the conclusion that ETs exist and visit earth. That's vastly different. I am willing to consider the possibility that ET's exist and have visited earth. However, I have yet to see any testable evidence proving it. Considering that 70 years of "research" hasn't produced any testable evidence, I think it makes sense to look at other possibilities without discarding that one.edit on 7-2-2015 by Tangerine because: ....separates my answer from the previous poster's comments
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Tangerine
The title of the report was "UFO's and Defense, what we must be prepared for?"
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
So, 5-10% of all unidentified flying objects remain unidentified. UNIDENTIFIED does not mean extraterrestrial. It means UNIDENTIFIED. Now explain to me, please, how jumping from unidentified to extraterrestrial while skipping over testable evidence proving extraterrestrial origin is logical.
Maybe the title of their report gave me a clue.
Again, here it is "UFO'S AND DEFENSE, WHAT MUST WE BE PREPARED FOR" ?
Do you think they would use words like "what must we be prepared for" if they thought they were looking at space junk? They would use those words for swamp gas, temperature inversions? But they ruled all of those out, didn't they?
So, you refuse or can't answer my question?
They ruled out any EARLTHLY explanations.
I'm waiting for your take on the truly unidentifiable 5% - 10% of all UFO sightings.
Here is a link again for those that missed it, the explosive COMETA report published by high ranking military, scientific and governmental officials in Europe:
COMETA report on UFO's
How could they possibly rule out earthly explanations when they're talking about UNIDENTIFIED flying objects? Do you understand that is is impossible to prove a negative.
Why are you trying to twist the rules of logic? People use logical inferences everyday in their lives, they are accepted in all walks of life, scientific, judicial, educational.......etc.
Anyway, it is not just me saying it, it is the high ranking officials in the COMETA report:
Certainly, this subject still sometimes elicits amused skepticism, if not a certain mistrust with regard to those who mention it seriously, but in the absence of explanations for the phenomena sighted, the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin can no longer be ruled out.
Source
So I'm curious as to why these high ranking, respected, credible officials are willing to consider the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, yet you are not?
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Tangerine
Correct. Paul Hellyer is not the current Canadian Minister of Defence. He was Minister of Defence in the early-to-mid 1960s.
As I mentioned in a post above, Paul Hellyer has repeated said that his beliefs in alien visitation is a personal belief, and not due to any kind of secret information about aliens that he was privy to during his time in office. He has said that his beliefs are based for the most part on the same information that the rest of us have access to -- except for one conversation that he had with a former U.S. General in which the general provided some second-hand information about UFOs and aliens.
However, Hellyer never learned any "smoking gun" information while he was Defence Minister.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Tangerine
Correct. Paul Hellyer is not the current Canadian Minister of Defence. He was Minister of Defence in the early-to-mid 1960s.
As I mentioned in a post above, Paul Hellyer has repeated said that his beliefs in alien visitation is a personal belief, and not due to any kind of secret information about aliens that he was privy to during his time in office. He has said that his beliefs are based for the most part on the same information that the rest of us have access to -- except for one conversation that he had with a former U.S. General in which the general provided some second-hand information about UFOs and aliens.
However, Hellyer never learned any "smoking gun" information while he was Defence Minister.
Correct, but as you know, the OP has consistently referred to him as the Canadian Minister of Defence (implying that he is currently holding that position rather than having held that position 55 years ago) and the OP has consistently insisted that the military disclosed facts about ETs in the video: none of which is accurate. It's this sort of deception that needs to be vigorously countered otherwise ATS becomes nothing more than a forum for "Who Can Tell the Biggest Whopper" contest.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Tangerine
Correct. Paul Hellyer is not the current Canadian Minister of Defence. He was Minister of Defence in the early-to-mid 1960s.
As I mentioned in a post above, Paul Hellyer has repeated said that his beliefs in alien visitation is a personal belief, and not due to any kind of secret information about aliens that he was privy to during his time in office. He has said that his beliefs are based for the most part on the same information that the rest of us have access to -- except for one conversation that he had with a former U.S. General in which the general provided some second-hand information about UFOs and aliens.
However, Hellyer never learned any "smoking gun" information while he was Defence Minister.
Correct, but as you know, the OP has consistently referred to him as the Canadian Minister of Defence (implying that he is currently holding that position rather than having held that position 55 years ago) and the OP has consistently insisted that the military disclosed facts about ETs in the video: none of which is accurate. It's this sort of deception that needs to be vigorously countered otherwise ATS becomes nothing more than a forum for "Who Can Tell the Biggest Whopper" contest.
Heres a big whopper you most likley havent watched the videos your talking about because you havent talked about what they are disclosing at all.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
They have "disclosed" that they believe ET is visiting Earth.
So what? You've disclosed that too. A belief is not necessarily a fact.
They? Who are THEY? The military? Really? Which military personnel revealed something in the video?
originally posted by: Agnost
What do you think of the testimony of John Callahan, the FAA Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch, regarding the 1986 JAL Alaska UFO incident? Credible?
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Good stuff, like I said earlier theres evidence everywhere if we only open our minds and eyes to it.
just cover thier eyes and speak nothing of the topic which is being presented.
The Canadian Defence Minister talks about the different types of alien races, thats important at least we know what ETs are working with the US government, and most likely working with other countries as well.
Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell also claims we have have had contact with ETs for over 60 years and have been keeping the truth from the public.
The conclusion of the report was 5% - 10% of all UFO's were truly unexplained by any phenomenon on earth, and given that these were top scientists and military officials they were aware of many possible explanations the layperson was not aware of.
NO EARTHLY EXPLANATIONS.
So give me an explanation that doesn't involve the above.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
If you can't, that just means you are incapable of making a logical inference.
Maybe the title of their report gave me a clue.
Again, here it is "UFO'S AND DEFENSE, WHAT MUST WE BE PREPARED FOR" ?
Do you think they would use words like "what must we be prepared for" if they thought they were looking at space junk? They would use those words for swamp gas, temperature inversions? But they ruled all of those out, didn't they?
So, you refuse or can't answer my question?
They ruled out any EARLTHLY explanations.
Haha you just proved me right orange guy, if your asking what military then you havent watched the videos like I said.
Classic posting on a thread without educating yourself on the topic being discussed.
Cmon you can do better than this cant you?
originally posted by: stirling
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Steven Greer has not credibility whatsoever. And a bunch of those names have a lot of mixed up stories which I don't feel have any credibility either. What's left is maybe a few tales which don't have easy explanations, but it does not mean aliens are visiting Earth. Evenso, I knew someone who told me he saw a ufo when growing up. Apparently it was dramatic for him. This person was in the military at one point in his life, so why should I doubt him? There're lots of people with those kinds of stories. And yet I also have a relative who claimed they saw Jesus. There're people who say they've spoken to deceased individuals. There're people.....
Stories and unprovable bits of evidence does not make it all true. Unlike these alleged truths, science and reality can prove themselves. Which side would you choose, if it meant life or death? I wonder about these things all the time, but I know who I'd trust when it counts. I'd put my money on SETI or NASA with confidence if it had any weight. Putting my money on Ufology or the "Disclosure Project" is like throwing most of it away.
Go ahead and live in a cave....your outlook is certainly primitive enough.....
You obviously don't have an open mind on the subject and are repeating what you hear from those who claim to be experts....
what you don't quite get is most of them are disinfo experts....