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.

 

Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Should the reality of ET ever surface then all that time spent denying the reality would blow up right in your face.

You are correct that the reality of ET hasn't surfaced but it would be impossible to deny that reality since it hasn't surfaced yet anyway.




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE




but from the way you have stated it, just because I want it not to be fake, you think it should be fake. You realize there is no logic in that position.

There's no logic in that position because it isn't true , It's fake whether you or I want it to be or not , I'd love it to be real but in the years since it was originally released I've read and seen much that shows it is a well executed fake , the information is out there if you choose to look.
I believe Skinny Bob is a movie quality puppet although I don't think it's beyond the ability of a talented amateur model maker to create it.




It doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else would love it to be real, or really wants it to be fake. We have to look at the facts.

You say you have read and seen much that would lead you to conclude that the video is fake. Okay, let's see some backup for that.

Here is a youtube channel that concludes it is real, they do some frame rate analysis on the video, and they seem to have some expertise if you look at the other videos on the channel:


Vparanormal is a Chicago area paranormal investigation group with a team that consists of electrical engineers, software engineers, audio engineers and forensic videographers.



edit on 12-4-2015 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Why? Well, even though the internet is infested with disinfo agents, the truth of the ongoing alien interaction with earth is getting tougher to cover-up with the proliferation of smart phones around the world and their ability to capture such images combined with dissemination vehicles such as youtube and liveleak.



Oh it's infested alright, like a carcass full of maggots.
The main reason I could never be a disinfo agent or debunker of this phenomenon is because it constitutes having a narrow view of reality. Should the reality of ET ever surface then all that time spent denying the reality would blow up right in your face. It's best to approach a topic such as this with an open mind, it safeguards the potentiality of one turning out to look parochial.


I have no problem with people who have a narrow field of reality, that would just be judgement, which is ego, and no offense intended to you TM, you are a truth warrior.

I DO have a problem with people who intentionally lie, people who are essentially traitors to mankind for a paycheck.

It is said that failing to allow mankind to thrive is one of the greatest sins of our world. When people are withheld the truth about important matters they cannot thrive. To imagine there are no karmic consequences for such action would be true ignorance.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Why? Well, even though the internet is infested with disinfo agents, the truth of the ongoing alien interaction with earth is getting tougher to cover-up with the proliferation of smart phones around the world and their ability to capture such images combined with dissemination vehicles such as youtube and liveleak.



Oh it's infested alright, like a carcass full of maggots.
The main reason I could never be a disinfo agent or debunker of this phenomenon is because it constitutes having a narrow view of reality. Should the reality of ET ever surface then all that time spent denying the reality would blow up right in your face. It's best to approach a topic such as this with an open mind, it safeguards the potentiality of one turning out to look parochial.


I have no problem with people who have a narrow field of reality, that would just be judgement, which is ego, and no offense intended to you TM, you are a truth warrior.

I DO have a problem with people who intentionally lie, people who are essentially traitors to mankind for a paycheck.

It is said that failing to allow mankind to thrive is one of the greatest sins of our world. When people are withheld the truth about important matters they cannot thrive. To imagine there are no karmic consequences for such action would be true ignorance.


I have no problem with it either, it only means that minds haven't quite opened up to other considerations. I was basically stating that I'm happy I'm no longer in that camp.

Now the intentional deception coming from these agents, that's a totally different breed I agree. You pretty much covered that aspect.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
The ten cases I selected from Kean's uncritical reprinting of the 'Weinstein list' is here:
www.nbcnews.com...
...and so far as I can remember, nobody has disputed that these cases do seem to have plausible prosaic explanations.


Thanks for this, but 10 out of 1300 is only 1 in 130. Perhaps the list was made before (some of) the proper identifications were made?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
The issue of pilot reliability as witnesses of non-aircraft sightings was already well known in the 1930s, look here:
In a brief 1936 paper, Harvey Nininger poked fun at the meteor observing skills of pilots.
Source URL: adsabs.harvard.edu...
"In my several years of experience in plotting the courses of meteors to determine their point of landing, I have never yet been able to use the report of an air pilot."


I think even the best observers would have difficulty with predicting where meteors will land. Astronauts on the moon said the stars are so clear they seem nearer. A lone light in space or even in the atmosphere is very hard to estimate in terms of distance. But pilots do estimate size and distance when ufos are near. The meteor thing is not a fair measure of pilot's ability to observe.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I thought I would just drop you folks a little update. I sent Leslie Kean a message about this and asked her to join us if she wished. Weather or not she does or will, I have no idea, but at least she is aware of it now. I was hoping one of the moderators might do it and maybe they have, but either way I tried to open the door for her.

If she does join us, I certianly hope we can respect her opinions as well as this thread has gone so far and be civilized. If we do, it may turn into a nice AMA in the future for all of us and that's a nice bonus IMHO.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

You could say the same about those with a total opposite view who declare aliens are here, they know it, but they can't actually offer us definitive proof because it's all been covered up. Should their motives and reasons for saying this be questioned? I think so. It is fairly obvious that some people have chosen to spin fantastic tales and take cash from the gullible.


The big gorilla in the room is why are they secret. It seems ever time proof positive starts to rear up it dissipates into excuses and cover ups explaining the missing data. And so one needs to ask why should aliens not be among us in open view in the first place. If one thinks about it they could have integrated openly anytime in our past and just been a part of us today.

I tend to go with Hawking in his statement that it would most likely not be a good event if we did have contact. We most likely would end up being dogs or cows to them...hehe

I would also think that contact would be by machines and not in the flesh due to the nature and size of what they need to overcome. That size is not just the distance to get to us, but also to find us...



Others probably started out with serious intentions but when forced to make a living out of their chosen 'career' then have to become more 'entertaining' and play to their audience. So certain awkward facts get dropped and other less than reliable, but more exciting pieces of 'evidence' get prominence. It then eventually becomes accepted lore. Look at the two pillars of Ufology - Roswell and Rendlesham and how those stories have expanded down the decades.


I entered the Air Force in 1980 and started flying in 1984. At my squadron at Travis AFB one of my friends was station at Bentwaters when the incident happened. He was involved in it to a small degree, but in his mind it really wasn't that big of a deal and the whole thing kind of took on a life of its own over the years.


edit on 12-4-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

Nice move, onehuman. I think it would be great to have her here.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex




if you know aliens are here what evidence do you have to back that knowledge or do you know because you read it somewhere ?


I know aliens are here because of first-hand contact with aliens, starting in 1966.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Jaellma
Thread swarming with known skeptics...Oberg, Gortex, Arbitrageur, etc...LOL



I've seen them all get a bad rap around here and it's usually undeserved.

Jim's been right about dozens of reported UFO sightings and who needs any mistaken reports cluttering up the databases? Arb usually makes a good case for his conclusions and relies on good sense and evidence.

Gortex is actually a gem on ATS. He's identified hoax after hoax when they get posted off YT channels on ATS. Who needs bad videos?

Scepticism is the life-blood of this field as without it, it'd calcify into some rigid, motionless structure that accepts everything as aliens.

I'm too often on the fence and vague so I can get bullets from all sides.


There is a common pattern I have seen with all the main stream talking heads, and that is to attempt a conclusion that no non human intelligence is here, coming here, or been here, in order to keep the status quo uneventful and as mundane as possible. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not truly representative of reality.

This is what I see being stated by most of the skeptics, and they all try to be as mundane as possible, but their patterns still show an effort at steering the masses away from seeing what still remains obvious. Not saying skepticism is bad or wrong all the time though.


I agree completely. Skepticism is one thing, serial denying is another. And for people claiming to rely on scientific evidence, they often twist the truth into pretzel logic, making the most outrageous, unjustified leaps of faith. People accuse ufology of acting like a religion, far more often it is the skeptics who lapse into faith.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Yeah I can see how people arrive at that impression. There's often an underlying obviousness that some skeptics know everything's BS and will rearrange reality to claim an explanation. Fir example, years ago we had Menzel creating inverted mirages reflecting Saturn (or some such thing) to explain reports. Anything, anything at all rather than leave it alone or admit to being puzzled. When it's really tough to explain, it's time to discredit the claimant.

Sometimes I wonder if it matters? Does it matter what someone believes as long as their cases/arguments are strong or credible?

It's maybe best to avoid the personality-side of the debates. Read widely and use your own judgement. Always be willing to throw away a famous case and be willing to hold your own when the explanations don't make sense to you.


I couldn't agree more, Kandinsky. You really hit the nail on the head.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I agree with both of you. Often there is one set of facts to be studied and both sides draw different conclusions from this same set of facts. Sometimes the sincerity of the individual arguing the point is more revealing than the actual point itself if they can intelligently explain their own interpretation. a reply to: Scdfa



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

Thanks for this, but 10 out of 1300 is only 1 in 130. Perhaps the list was made before (some of) the proper identifications were made?


Do you concede those ten?

What about the assurance that the cases were ALL unexplainable in ordinary terms?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Do the words "anomalous propagation" mean anything? That can happen when there are high winds which was apparently the case with that radar data. That link contains a documentary explaining the underground flights on the radar data leading believers and skeptics alike to conclude most of the data was bad.


DeBrouwer claimed weather conditions were favorable, Jerry Cohen has a full discussion here which is a rebuttal of this article

From a July 5th, 1990 Paris Match article by Marie-Thérèse De Brosses: (click here if not available) The following are her questions and Col. DeBrouwer's answers.

After having seen this dramatic sequence, I posed a number of questions to Col. DeBrouwer. First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon?

"No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorological conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."

Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk?

"No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numerous changes in direction, and the atmospheric conditions that prevailed precluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."


However the consecutive sitings of the craft as it moved from Eupen to the north is the most compelling, starting at 4 minutes in on this video.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Here is a youtube channel that concludes it is real, they do some frame rate analysis on the video, and they seem to have some expertise if you look at the other videos on the channel:
The conclusion at the end of the video doesn't say it's real, it says if it's a fake, it's a good one rivaling a big-budget movie prop.

a reply to: 111DPKING111
If the "UFO" was flying underground according to radar, I don't see how any of that makes a difference. Did you watch the documentary embedded in the post I linked to? Even SOBEPS admitted the radar data was nearly all faulty, and they were the ones trying to make a case for something more.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




And that it is not skeptics who have brought serious UFO studies into disrepute, it's believers who 'see' things they way you seem to. Any clearer?


Wow, your pompous proclamation is offensive and unfounded, Jim.

You use the term "believer" to describe anyone who is convinced that alien contact is a reality.

Save the "belief" for matters of faith, like Santa, The Easter bunny, or trickle-down economics. No faith needed, not with the weight of evidence of alien contact.

Speaking personally, I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I've never had the luxury of speculation, or guessing whether or not aliens are here. I know alien contact is a fact, but you?

Jim, you must admit you are guessing. Isn't that the truth? You're guessing that aliens aren't here. Oh, you may call it your learned opinion, or your evidentiary conclusion, but it is only your best guess.

Well, there are a great many of us who are not guessing. Through the circumstances of our lives we are in a position of knowledge, through careers in the military, intelligence, and the great many who have been contacted and abducted.

But you are deeply involved with CSICOP, isn't that correct? An organization devoted to denying any evidence that supports alien contact, basically. Hmmm.

A co-founder of CSICOP, Marcello Truzzi quit the group because people at CSICOP, like you, “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.”

Dennis Rawlins, another founding member of CSICOP resigned, claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk claims.

CSICOP was also accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in the Discovery Channel's test of psychic Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive" rather than judged in the negative. Josephson, of the University of Cambridge, doubted the researchers' motives saying, "On the face of it, it looks as if there was some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure."[

Jim, even Carl Sagan offered criticism of your organization, "CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases [criticism of CSICOP] is to some degree justified."

I could go on at great length, but I've made my point.

It seems to call into question the truthfulness of your statement:




It is not skeptics who have brought serious UFO studies into disrepute, it's believers who 'see' things they way you seem to.


Any clearer? Yes. Considerably clearer.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg


What about the assurance that the cases were ALL unexplainable in ordinary terms?


I dont think you can make it that cut and dry. A member here, Isaac Koi, attempted to compile a listof the best cases, however it isnt so easy.

If Kean had a ranking attached to each siting, or wrote about them in the order of credibility, that certainly would have been helpful. A siting show intelligent control or observerd for an extended period of time could be ranked higher than just seeing something streak by.

I listed 3 of better siting i know about earlier, perhaps others think there are better sitings available.

Madagascar in 54, double daylight siting
Westall in 66, daylight siting at Australian elementary school, starting at 9:14 is the best part.
Ravenna in 66, cat and mouse chase



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


If the "UFO" was flying underground according to radar, I don't see how any of that makes a difference. Did you watch the documentary embedded in the post I linked to? Even SOBEPS admitted the radar data was nearly all faulty, and they were the ones trying to make a case for something more.


It doesnt appear that Belgium Airforce and SOBEPS had access to the same information. The airforce conducted its own analysis and concluded there was something to it, as I quoted above. Perhaps they employed incompetent people to check the data, but to me, it sounds like they did their homework.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman

If she does join us, I certianly hope we can respect her opinions as well as this thread has gone so far and be civilized. If we do, it may turn into a nice AMA in the future for all of us and that's a nice bonus IMHO.


Yeah, kind of like how the doe eyed believers are extending Oberg so much respect in this thread?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join