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.

 

Obama adviser John Podesta's biggest regret: Keeping America in dark about UFOs.

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You're welcome to your opinion. But anyone who preaches about testable evidence doesn't understand the UFO phenomenon. I don't care what he's read.

👣



Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Do you consider the UFO phenomenon purely physical like Stanton Friedman? If so, why wouldn't there be a requirement for real tangible evidence? But I think you are saying that its not physical in the sense that science would understand. Correct?

The problem I see is that people want to cite physical evidence of UFOs in order to meet the requirements of science but then complain when it fails. There could be a better strategy to investigate the phenomenon but it seems like this ongoing dialogue is not moving forward. And that's unfortunate.
edit on 19-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



The people you describe are holding Ufology back.


Yes, the people that insist that this is a purely physical phenomenon hold the topic back. Its the Friedman UFOlogy cult that wants to define the phenomenon. All they are interested in is labeling others that disagree with their views. There is much more to it than this. That's unfortunate.
edit on 19-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I think it's just a test of convictions. When they're new they tend to be a little stiff. They just need some breaking in is all. Or its a superiority thing which could be deep seated. I don't take anything personally and in fact enjoy yanking a chain or two.
The thing to keep in mind is that some people really don't want to know, and will defend their position out of fear or self importance. We can't know which short of a few therapy sessions.
Myself, I'm not certain but the fence is wide and comfortable so I don't mind being here. I however don't discount everything. I consider it all. Some is complete bull and some carries more weight. If I wait for "testable evidence" I'll be left behind. Some things require personal experience that while valid isn't testable. In that case I say hey don't tell me what my experience is. You just can't possibly do that.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.

UFO data can be studied scientifically, just like any social science data. Photos can be studied to a point. Traces can be studied in various ways.

But, no, you can't get a UFO to show up on cue and sit still for a good analysis. They show up fairly randomly, they don't look the same, and they don't do the same things. And photos and traces turn out to be pretty much crap that don't really tell you anything definitive.

The fact that we know this about UFOs, however, is kind of evidence in itself, and some generalized hypotheses can be derived from it.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Yes, the people that insist that this is a purely physical phenomenon hold the topic back. Its the Friedman UFOlogy cult that wants to define the phenomenon. All they are interested in is labeling others that disagree with their views. There is much more to it than this. That's unfortunate.

I tend to agree. After contemplating the topic for several decades, I think that pure objectivism (not the Ayn Rand kind) has failed to produce any significant understanding of real UFOs. There's a strong personal, subjective component to the phenomenon that can't be dismissed regardless how difficult it is to incorporate into any serious scientific study. It has to do with how we collectively and individually perceive and try to define reality.

Unfortunately, a strictly nuts-and-bolts approach just can't do the job, because at this point we fundamentally don't even know how many or what kind of nuts and bolts we have to work with.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: BlueMule

Do you consider the UFO phenomenon purely physical like Stanton Friedman? If so, why wouldn't there be a requirement for real tangible evidence? But I think you are saying that its not physical in the sense that science would understand. Correct?


Correct. The rules of science need to change before it can tackle this subject. That's why I get annoyed by people who preach about scientific evidence, as if science is ready and willing. It isn't.


The problem I see is that people want to cite physical evidence of UFOs in order to meet the requirements of science but then complain when it fails. There could be a better strategy to investigate the phenomenon but it seems like this ongoing dialogue is not moving forward. And that's unfortunate.


I think this might have something to do with the difference between evidence and proof. Scientism preachers want rock-solid proof. But all we have is accumulated evidence. Evidence is not proof, because it can be interpreted in different ways.

But before you can demand rock solid scientific proof of ET, you need to succumb to the tacit, pervasive assumption that the phenomenon is within the scope of science as it is currently practiced. There is no basis for that assumption.


Yes, the people that insist that this is a purely physical phenomenon hold the topic back. Its the Friedman UFOlogy cult that wants to define the phenomenon. All they are interested in is labeling others that disagree with their views. There is much more to it than this. That's unfortunate.


Yes, it's a psychophysical phenomenon, and unfortunately science is too clumsy and limited to handle that.

Science will be ready to handle the UFO phenomenon when it is ready to handle psychic ability.

👣


edit on 823ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Clinton advisor Webster Hubble said pretty much the same thing; he was supposedly asked to look into UFOs (and the JFK assasination) and didn't get good answers.


"According to longtime Clinton aide Webster Hubbell's memoir, President Clinton told his trusted ally and Justice Department appointee there were two things he wanted found out: whether there were UFOs, and who killed JFK."

souce: www.cbsnews.com...

no republicans?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Correct. The rules of science need to change before it can tackle this subject. That's why I get annoyed by people who preach about scientific evidence, as if science is ready and willing.


What (I think) you are misinterpreting is that you are seeing someone saying "science is the answer" when I think they are just drawing a line in the sand. Statements of fact need evidence. Physical things leave physical evidence. At this juncture I think we are dealing with something "non physical" or at least not physical in the way science understands. My bias leans towards psychophysiological type explanations but I would be hard pressed to state anything as fact without anything to back it up. People want to claim "science" without doing science and complain about science as if it has a will of its own.


I think this might have something to do with the difference between evidence and proof. Scientism preachers want rock-solid proof. But all we have is accumulated evidence. Evidence is not proof, because it can be interpreted in different ways.

But before you can demand rock solid scientific proof of ET, you need to succumb to the tacit, pervasive assumption that the phenomenon is within the scope of science as it is currently practiced. There is no basis for that assumption.

I think what needs to happen first is to define what "ET" is. Is it Physical? Is it Interdimensional? Is it something else? There is no place for "interdimensional beings" in science currently. But there certainly is a place for "physical beings" in science since they would be bound by the same rules. Something not defined is considered "unknown" by science. But people want to define it and fit it into science somehow!


edit on 19-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: BlueMule

Correct. The rules of science need to change before it can tackle this subject. That's why I get annoyed by people who preach about scientific evidence, as if science is ready and willing.


What (I think) you are misinterpreting is that you are seeing someone saying "science is the answer" when I think they are just drawing a line in the sand.


Perhaps.


Statements of fact need evidence. Physical things leave physical evidence.


They also leave anecdotal evidence. Scientism preachers are quick to dismiss it, but it adds up to data, and there are intriguing patterns in the data.

👣


edit on 835ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Anyone who wants information on UFOs just needs to google them and tons of information comes up.


Or just watch the History Channel or any channel. Its a good thing the government is to dumb to figure out how keep all this highly classified information from getting out.



Ironically, don't you mean "too dumb"?

I have to ask. Are you Scfda? Your posts seem to be identical in just about every way. He stopped posting after a series of his posts got removed then you appeared. Sorry to bother you if you aren't. anyway, good one!


Is Scfda a name? I just get annoyed when people mix up "to" and "too", and "cite" "site" and "sight", and especially "there" and "their" and "they're". Drives me crazy, but I'm sure I've done it too.

On a more personal note if I may, I must say I do not entirely approve of your using a "steal your face" and the Europe '72 ice cream kid in your avatar. I acknowledge you have every right to pick your avatar, but you do a disservice by associating these extremely enlightened men with your personal denialist view. In my humble opinion, of course.

Knowing Phil and Bobby as I do, I can assure you they hold entirely opposite views than you do regarding alien contact. Their views are much closer to mine, if I may be so forward. I'm not asking you to change your views or your avatar, but your views are incompatible with theirs.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jaxsmash
I can tell you if the government came out with it, I would be terrified and would pull my kids from school, they would never leave my side. I would freak out, it would change the way I live my life.

a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant



and thanks to people like you, everyone is being kept in the dark.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers

On a more personal note if I may, I must say I do not entirely approve of your using a "steal your face" and the Europe '72 ice cream kid in your avatar. I acknowledge you have every right to pick your avatar, but you do a disservice by associating these extremely enlightened men with your personal denialist view. In my humble opinion, of course.

Knowing Phil and Bobby as I do, I can assure you they hold entirely opposite views than you do regarding alien contact. Their views are much closer to mine, if I may be so forward. I'm not asking you to change your views or your avatar, but your views are incompatible with theirs.


Insert "they've probably seen all kinds of stuff after fifty years of '___'" joke here.


EDIT: Hmm....guess I'm not allowed to mention that chemical on ATS. Might put a damper on a lot of valid discussions here but it's not my swimming pool.


edit on 19-2-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel



Hmm....guess I'm not allowed to mention that chemical on ATS. Might put a damper on a lot of valid discussions here but it's not my swimming pool.

There certainly is a connection there and this would be a great forum to explore that...i have seen a couple threads 404ed. I actually understand the reasoning after visiting sites that do allow that discussion. But there is such a wealth of documented studies to draw from. Ah well.
edit on 19-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Answer
Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.

UFO data can be studied scientifically, just like any social science data. Photos can be studied to a point. Traces can be studied in various ways.

But, no, you can't get a UFO to show up on cue and sit still for a good analysis. They show up fairly randomly, they don't look the same, and they don't do the same things. And photos and traces turn out to be pretty much crap that don't really tell you anything definitive.

The fact that we know this about UFOs, however, is kind of evidence in itself, and some generalized hypotheses can be derived from it.


The same can be said for Sasquatch.

It's frustrating when the only data available are from individual sightings and minor traces of (typically non-compelling) physical evidence.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Answer
Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.

UFO data can be studied scientifically, just like any social science data. Photos can be studied to a point. Traces can be studied in various ways.

But, no, you can't get a UFO to show up on cue and sit still for a good analysis. They show up fairly randomly, they don't look the same, and they don't do the same things. And photos and traces turn out to be pretty much crap that don't really tell you anything definitive.

The fact that we know this about UFOs, however, is kind of evidence in itself, and some generalized hypotheses can be derived from it.


The same can be said for Sasquatch.

It's frustrating when the only data available are from individual sightings and minor traces of (typically non-compelling) physical evidence.


But, as far as I know, Bigfoot doesn't have an ancient and important role in world religion and myth. Ufos do. Scholars of religion can see the cross-cultural patterns. The-man-on-the-street can't. So he can only think of it in terms that his culture gives him.

"You can’t think yourself out of the story you are caught in with the rules and elements of the very story in which you are caught. You can’t free yourself with the tools that the master provides you. You need a new story and new cognitive tools" -Jeffrey Kripal

I'm not talking about ancient astronauts. It's much weirder than that.

👣


edit on 896ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
The same can be said for Sasquatch. It's frustrating when the only data available are from individual sightings and minor traces of (typically non-compelling) physical evidence.

It has been pointed out that Sasquatch and UFOs have a lot in common in that regard. There is a very heavy subjective perceptual component to it that's hard to incorporate into a straightforward scientific study.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Tangerine

Claims are not evidence. Personal experiences are not evidence. Evidence must be testable. Where is the testable evidence?


Your obsession with science and testable evidence says that you have a very strong and misplaced faith in science, and a very shallow understanding of the UFO phenomenon. It's disgusting.

The UFO phenomenon is much, much older than the space-age and much more mystical than science can handle. You would know that if your thinking weren't so one-sided, imbalanced, biased. Science can only get you half-way. You also need the Humanities. You need religious studies, comparative mythology, comparative mysticism. You need to understand how the UFO phenomenon manifested in antiquity, how it fit into world religion and myth. Including space-age myth.

Understanding the UFO phenomenon requires a multi-disciplinary approach, not your one-sided approach. The goal is understanding, not the validation of a post-Enlightenment, Johnny-come-lately, imbalanced paradigm.

I've seen no indication that you understand such things. On the contrary, I've seen indications that you have the same level of religious/mystical/parapsychological ignorance as the man-on-the-street. Needless to say, that level of understanding is pathetic.

You are a scientism zealot using science as a crutch, as a defense. Why? Are you ashamed of your youthful gullibility? Are you compensating for something?

👣



You misunderstand. I am responding to claims of fact that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people. Fact is the purview of science. That is the reason I properly used science as a framework to discuss those claims of fact. If you had read my posts carefully, you would have noticed that I have repeatedly called for expanding the approach to the topic of UFOs. I have suggested that interdimensionality, the paranormal, metaphysics, archetypes and the collective unconcious, black ops, a non-earthly control system etc. be explored. I am not only aware that UFOs and entity encounters have been reported throughout the ages, I have formally studied mythology and folklore and comparative religion. The parallels between faerie encounters and reports of extraterrestrial encounters are stunning. I am especially interested in Jacques Vallee's approach to the topic of UFOs. I don't know how you have missed my mention of these topics. Perhaps it's because just about everyone posting on this topic ignores that and continues deepening the wagon wheel rut in the road of materialism. Perhaps you would like to discuss these other approaches with me. I would welcome it. You might start by canning the assumption that I am a youthful, gullible, ignorant zealot compensating for something. Let's see how much you know about these other fields of inquiry.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

There certainly is a connection there and this would be a great forum to explore that...i have seen a couple threads 404ed. I actually understand the reasoning after visiting sites that do allow that discussion. But there is such a wealth of documented studies to draw from. Ah well.


You couldn't have a full discussion of Stanislav Grof's work for example. But I also understand why they need to do it.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: BlueMule

I am pretty sure that we are talking about UFOs as a purely physical event in which case physical evidence would be required. That doesn't sound like what you are describing. However, there are plenty of people around that believe that UFO phenomena is 100% physical and disregard any other "non physical" views.

In separate postings (if I recall) you and Tangerine have mentioned the same book "The Trickster and the Paranormal" as being an important read regarding this topic. I am thinking that your harsh criticism is grossly misplaced.


Thank you. I have periodically tried to turn the discussion toward the non-physical but am drowned-out by the claims that UFOs are fact--which places them in the realm of science. Perhaps we could take this opportunity to head down a different path.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Thanks. My position is this. Anyone who can come away from that book sounding like a typical science and 'hard evidence' apologist, which Tangerine certainly does, either didn't really read it, or let it all go in one ear and out the other.

It's a great book, but no single book can balance the thinking of someone who is indoctrinated by the dominant paradigm.

👣



Why don't you kick off a discussion on liminality as it relates to UFOs and find out?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join