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.

 

Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

page: 14
98
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

When people resort to largely semantical arguments, it demonstrates their lack of understanding based on the scientific data.

What is a semantical argument? What scientific data are you referring to?


Show me a body of data that is 99% untrue, and tell me why.

I honestly don't understand what you are asking me to do. The "99%" was made up as was explained already.




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Gianfar

If you do the homework on UFO statistics, you'll find that millions of people the world over witness unconventional craft on a regular basis.



For what it's worth there's a thread here about official statistics involved with the subject of unidentified flying objects - actual unknowns are around 20%.



originally posted by: Gianfar

To say that thousands of sighting all over the world are all attributed to U-2 and SR-71 spy planes or other such projects in these times really doesn't address the accrued data.


To say it also shows a person is a 'true beleiver' because there is very little evidence to back it up.




Thanks for the link. Interesting at least. Just a note that the context of my statements about statistics was based on a quote by Sahabi in which he linked to the following Popular Mechanics article; 6 Top-Secret Aircraft that are Mistaken for UFOs. The CIA estimates that more than half of the UFOs reported in the 1950s and 1960s were really American spy planes. Here are six (no longer) secret aircraft that people have mistaken for extraterrestrial flying saucers.

The CIA and Air Force often use media to publish counter intelligence articles to create doubt. The average person lacks the initiative and knowledge to study accrued data, which without doubt contradicts these government issued articles. Semantics and out of context opinions seems to be the usual response in such circumstances.




edit on 21-3-2015 by Gianfar because: grammar and composition



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah




I have no problem with the "metaterristrial" or even "ultraterrestrial" theories. Would it be illogical to think that some of this "high strangeness" could be attributed to ETs as well? I mean, in essence we would still be dealing with beings who function beyond the scope of human comprehension by virtue of being more technologically advanced which in turn could produce a wide variety of effects.


In all honesty, I don't think it's possible to form a conclusion. There's insufficient data for a meaningful answer. : )



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: TrueMessiah




I have no problem with the "metaterristrial" or even "ultraterrestrial" theories. Would it be illogical to think that some of this "high strangeness" could be attributed to ETs as well? I mean, in essence we would still be dealing with beings who function beyond the scope of human comprehension by virtue of being more technologically advanced which in turn could produce a wide variety of effects.


In all honesty, I don't think it's possible to form a conclusion. There's insufficient data for a meaningful answer. : )



There is a wealth of data, depending upon any given individual's interests, biases and so forth, and his definition of what constitutes data. I've often found that people who aren't trained scientifically will consider nearly anything as either evidence or non-evidence. I'd like to know if your applied rules of what qualifies as data is based on emotional biases, such as an avid disapproval of the topic or a conflict with some deep rooted ideological inference (i.e. religious).



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa


Say what you want about David Jacobs,

OK. He is an idiot.



Would you mind explaining in some detail what you mean by "idiot"?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

When people resort to largely semantical arguments, it demonstrates their lack of understanding based on the scientific data.

What is a semantical argument? What scientific data are you referring to?


Show me a body of data that is 99% untrue, and tell me why.

I honestly don't understand what you are asking me to do. The "99%" was made up as was explained already.





The word 'semantic' can be found in any dictionary.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar
The question is "what is a semantical argument?". Not what semantic means. I'm not anti semantic.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar
The question is "what is a semantical argument?". Not what semantic means. I'm not anti semantic.



Semantics, in the basic form is an argument formalized around linguistics, terminology or general interpretations of non-critical elements of a conversation. In other words, non-factual. Can we get back on the topic ?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa


Say what you want about David Jacobs,

OK. He is an idiot.



Would you mind explaining in some detail what you mean by "idiot"?



An Idiot, dolt, or dullard is an intellectually disabled person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/an ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence. In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound intellectual disability.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa


Say what you want about David Jacobs,

OK. He is an idiot.



Would you mind explaining in some detail what you mean by "idiot"?








What is it about the man do you not like, regarding the topic?

edit on 21-3-2015 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gianfar

What is it about the man do you not like, regarding the topic?


If you don't now why someone wouldn't like David Jacobs then we should probably just leave it at that and chalk up my comment as just being a lazy semantical argument over some body of scientific data that I am too lazy to look up. Thanks for the conversation.
edit on 21-3-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: TrueMessiah

I honestly think that the anger manifested by agitated debunkers (not all-just the ones that you can imagine throwing their computer and screaming at their cats because someone ELSE is willing to have an open mind) is the result of FEAR.

It is a psychological response to a deep deep fear that there REALLY might be something out there that doesn't fit into THEIR neat little box of "reality" that they force upon others-and they can't handle the idea that someone has a different idea.


Agreed. All I can say is that they need to get a grip and embrace the possibilities.

What's interesting is how all of these debunkers seem to have knowledge of the phenomenon but continuously accept alternatives like all abductees being subjected to mind control or hypothesis' even more outlandish than ETs like other/inter/ultra terrestrial hypothesis', the later 3 being based only on mere speculation and assumption. At least in dealing with aliens we have abduction testimony detailing how they look, operations being performed, mutilation cases, reasons for mutilations, details on alien entities working in underground facilities etc....all from a wide plethora of sources that range from the average citizen to officials with the highest type of top secret clearance. I just don't see a reason to discount all of that in favor of all these alternate hypothesis'. Makes no sense to me at all.

edit on CDTSat, 21 Mar 2015 19:59:50 -0500000000America/ChicagoMarAmerica/Chicago505059pm by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar


Semantics, in the basic form is an argument formalized around linguistics, terminology or general interpretations of non-critical elements of a conversation. In other words, non-factual. Can we get back on the topic ?

Yes, you are correct, nothing factual was mentioned in your posts which was my point. What facts and scientific data are you referring to?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Gianfar

What is it about the man do you not like, regarding the topic?


If you don't now why someone wouldn't like David Jacobs then we should probably just leave it at that and chalk up my comment as just being a lazy semantical argument over some body of scientific data that I am too lazy to look up. Thanks for the conversation.




How man of his books have you read?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar


Semantics, in the basic form is an argument formalized around linguistics, terminology or general interpretations of non-critical elements of a conversation. In other words, non-factual. Can we get back on the topic ?

Yes, you are correct, nothing factual was mentioned in your posts which was my point. What facts and scientific data are you referring to?





Data that I studied since the 1960s. The sooner you get started, the sooner we can have a well informed conversation.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Gianfar

What is it about the man do you not like, regarding the topic?


If you don't now why someone wouldn't like David Jacobs then we should probably just leave it at that and chalk up my comment as just being a lazy semantical argument over some body of scientific data that I am too lazy to look up. Thanks for the conversation.



How man of his books have you read?

ZERO! and that's because I refuse to fund his panty sniffing habit. I don't think reading his books would change my mind about him at this point nor would reading Mein Kampf make me think Hitler was a swell guy either. I have seen enough of his lectures and interviews and listened to enough of his RECORDED hypnotic sessions to form my opinion of him.

How much of the 180 hours of recorded sessions have you listened to?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Gianfar

What is it about the man do you not like, regarding the topic?


If you don't now why someone wouldn't like David Jacobs then we should probably just leave it at that and chalk up my comment as just being a lazy semantical argument over some body of scientific data that I am too lazy to look up. Thanks for the conversation.


How man of his books have you read?

ZERO! and that's because I refuse to fund his panty sniffing habit. I don't think reading his books would change my mind about him at this point nor would reading Mein Kampf make me think Hitler was a swell guy either. I have seen enough of his lectures and interviews and listened to enough of his RECORDED hypnotic sessions to form my opinion of him.

How much of the 180 hours of recorded sessions have you listened to?




I can only advise you to study everything you can get your hands on, if you aren't sure whether or not a particular author has anything of value to say. After all, you would assume to know best.
edit on 21-3-2015 by Gianfar because: grammar and composition



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   


Data that I studied since the 1960s. The sooner you get started, the sooner we can have a well informed conversation.

Ohhhhh. That data. its right there in vapor land. Thanks again!



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

I can only advise you to study everything you can get your hands on, if you aren't sure whether or not a particular author has anything of value to say. After all, you would assume to know best.

I would advise you to not take guys like Jacobs at face value. His books are not real research by any standard. If they were, there would be some transparency. There is no data to look at, only what he tells you. However, when you do get a real look at his methodologies, you will see that how he portrays himself is the complete opposite of how he really is. So how much of his recorded sessions have you listened to?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

I can only advise you to study everything you can get your hands on, if you aren't sure whether or not a particular author has anything of value to say. After all, you would assume to know best.

I would advise you to not take guys like Jacobs at face value. His books are not real research by any standard. If they were, there would be some transparency. There is no data to look at, only what he tells you. However, when you do get a real look at his methodologies, you will see that how he portrays himself is the complete opposite of how he really is. So how much of his recorded sessions have you listened to?




I would have to agree. I've read and listened to everything out there. Most if not all of the work of self proclaimed investigators are not scientifically disciplined in their approach. They've done irreparable damage to the public psyche and to those they have interviewed, hypnotized and so forth.

Respectable scientists who studied this subject have never talked to the public at large, but have instead done their work in private and in small groups. There were several groups of physicists, especially within several decades after WWII, who carefully gathered data from individuals and collectively researched and discussed their findings in closed circuit studies. Some of them represented governments, while others represented private or their own scientific interests.

I know of at least one alleged contactee who spend several days on a camping trip with a small group of physicists just days after the book was published.

I would concur that though the prospect of unearthly beings visiting the planet is both fascinating and terrifying, it is quite frustrating to see the same pattern of incompetency in the methodology of amateur, non-scientific authors. There are exceptions, namely that of Jacques Fabrice Vallée and Dr. John E. Mack, who headed the Harvard psychiatric department.

Although Vallée was a scientist, considered by some colleagues as perhaps scientifically compromised as a ufologist, he also collaborated privately with Allan J. Hynek for many years during and after Hynek's research while under the government envelope of Project Blue Book. Much of what Hynek never published of his own work ended up in Vallée's authored books and contributed to his own conclusions about the nature and origin of UFOs and the entities. Hynek's original study was handed over to government officials.









edit on 21-3-2015 by Gianfar because: grammar and composition



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join