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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

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?


Yes, I would conceded them but I think the standard of criticism is a bit high here. It would be hard work to go through 1300 cases with a fine tooth comb and I guess she trusted the source. There are another 1170 cases to contend with. The argument seems much ado about nothing (or about very little.)




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Oh, there is this little film as well, still not definitively proven fake, or not replicated:




Would anyone like to comment on this?-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
It's interesting that many skeptics will accept any terrestrial explanation—no matter how seemingly unlikely—instead of admitting that a case can't be explained.

For example Robert Sheaffer "explains" just about every case in Kean's book here: "Unexplained" Cases—Only If You Ignore All Explanations

Yeah, but they're crap explanations! For example the 1976 Tehran UFO is "explained" as Jupiter...


I've always found that infuriating. Skeptics can never just say "I don't know". They can never leave anything as unexplained.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
It's interesting that many skeptics will accept any terrestrial explanation—no matter how seemingly unlikely—instead of admitting that a case can't be explained.


I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. I have no qualms about admitting something is unexplained. What I *DO* have qualms about are people who say or at least imply that because something is unexplained (often through lack of data) that it means it is something alien or extraterrestrial.

That is a light-year sized leap of logic.



Yeah, but they're crap explanations! For example the [url=http://ufoevidence.org/cases/case200.htm]1976 Tehran UFO is "explained" as Jupiter...


Actually, Jupiter and Venus under the right conditions can look very strange and the USAF wasn't immune to it either as pilots have pursued Venus on more than one occasion.


That's very subjective, and it's questionable to assume outright that the pilot didn't know what he was looking at. Short of debriefing the pilot, there's no way to have any idea what the conditions were that would lead to such a conclusion as a mistaken planet. Because it's happened before doesn't automatically make it likely it happened here. Not even a little bit.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Its neat, and looks incredible, but everyone said the same thing about the alien autopsy video. A documentation on the autopsy video got a crew of special effects guys together and they were stunned at how good it was, especially the wetness of the organs. But hoaxer eventually admitted to it.

Maybe no one has admitted to this, but by itself, its not enough for me.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: EnPassant

Its neat, and looks incredible, but everyone said the same thing about the alien autopsy video. A documentation on the autopsy video got a crew of special effects guys together and they were stunned at how good it was, especially the wetness of the organs. But hoaxer eventually admitted to it.

Maybe no one has admitted to this, but by itself, its not enough for me.


ok but what do you make of that guy's analysis? Is it convincing? Anyone here know about cgi? www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Hi Again.
I actually want to save this but it seems I just cant hold it anymore.
Admittedly, I ought I missed the book of the UFO because when it was found it wasn't as expected.
I didn't even bother to read it it makes me sleepy.

Honestly, it was frustrating...

BUT!
You wanna know? Or ill save it for the Intro part. LOL.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAmPhoeniX07
Hi Again.
I actually want to save this but it seems I just cant hold it anymore.
Admittedly, I ought I missed the book of the UFO because when it was found it wasn't as expected.
I didn't even bother to read it it makes me sleepy.

Honestly, it was frustrating...

BUT!
You wanna know? Or ill save it for the Intro part. LOL.


I really have no idea what this all means. The words are English but they don't seem to make sense the way you've put them together.

But at least it made you laugh.




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Ok. Thanks. Yes it made me laugh, cause its intended for me, that is why.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

Wow, what an offensive view to have of people who have had contact with aliens. Uneducated country bumpkins? Like Betty and Barney Hill? Like Whitley Stieber? And tin foil hats?

I guess the stereotype is news to you, huh? Good attempt at trying to attribute the comments to me though.


Folks, this is a common debunker fabrication: Eyewitness testimony is good evidence for everything EXCEPT UFOs and aliens!

Pure, unadulterated bull

Where was that said? I stated and linked just the opposite for eyewitness testimony in general. I'm responding to and going with your belief that eyewitness testimony in court cases would hold the same weight as eyewitness testimony of UFO and aliens:

That's why eyewitness testimony is regarded so very highly in our judicial system that people are sentenced to both life and death by witness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is on the whole extremely reliable, not infallible of course, but extremely reliable, and depended upon not only in courts of law, but in virtually all facets of society.

I explained one is based in scientifically proven and established facts to begin with. That gives valid arguments to any defendant committing any crime and further eyewitness testimony, reliable or not. While the other has yet to provide a single piece verifiable physical evidence allowing you to continue to the next step of accusing an alien performing any action. This is before any testimony is given. The foundation for the argument is there for one, but not the other. It's an unbalanced comparison and a horrible argument.


So the eyewitness testimony WAS reliable. Those eyewitnesses were right all along. Hmmm. That's pretty ironic.

How was it determined that eyewitness testimony of the giant squid was reliable? Only after physical evidence was found. The testimony itself wasn't enough to show it was a physical object. The same can be said for bigfoot, ghosts, mermaids, leprechauns, the devil, Loch Ness monster, and so on. Lots of testimony, but no overwhelming evidence. No matter how much you want to deny and fight it, this is the group where UFO/aliens belong and need to be compared with for your point.

I'm noting a familiar waft.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg


This isn't necessarily a personal rebuttal but sort of a general comment but using your quote to represent(possibly unfairly) the opinions of a sizeable camp. I guess what you say isn't such a bad way to look at things depending on how far you are taking it. Some people are extremists either way no doubt, but it seems to me you might be saying that until one specific case is proven 100% beyond a reasonable doubt to have an extraordinary explanation then every case MUST be assumed as having any number of ordinary explanations that we either aren't aware of yet or just haven't proven yet. Fair enough, but one could just as easily and reasonably say that with so many unexplained cases out there until all of them are proven to be 100% beyond a reasonable doubt to have ordinary explanations then it's safe to assume there is some extraordinary cause for at least some of them that we haven't discovered yet. I don't think that makes a person some sort of UFO elitist or propaganda pusher and I don't think it's any different than what you said above.




Above is what I said a few pages ago to another post you had and I think it applies to this post from you quoted below as well...


Do you concede those ten? What about the assurance that the cases were ALL unexplainable in ordinary terms?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
Fair enough, but one could just as easily and reasonably say that with so many unexplained cases out there until all of them are proven to be 100% beyond a reasonable doubt to have ordinary explanations then it's safe to assume there is some extraordinary cause for at least some of them that we haven't discovered yet.
But we have discovered something we understand which can possibly explain those cases that seem otherwise unexplainable. See the link Jim Oberg posted to his October 2014 article a few pages back, re-posted here:

www.jamesoberg.com...

It was impossible to reconcile the witness observations with any known phenomena before we identified what the phenomenon was. Now that we know what it was, some of the witness observations can be reconciled with the event and some cannot. The witness statements that cannot be reconciled with the event don't suggest there was any extraordinary event, rather, they show that humans have the ability to use the "pattern recognition" functions of their brain in processing observations. The result is that you end up with honest reports that would seem to have an extraordinary cause, that is until you read Jim Oberg's report and see that you'd be in error to assume this means there is an extraordinary cause.

Maybe there is and maybe there isn't an extraordinary cause in other cases, but it would not be consistent with the evidence to say "then it's safe to assume there is some extraordinary cause for at least some of them that we haven't discovered yet."

No that is not a safe, nor even reasonable assumption. It's only a possibility, and talking in generalities tends to be unproductive anyway. Look at specifics, such as this case which was in some top ten best UFO cases and appeared to have an extraordinary cause, but it's another event like the one in Jim Oberg's October 2014 article both of which show why it's not safe to assume that:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!


UFO "Mothership" sighted from the Klondike Highway, Yukon Territory, Dec. 11, 1996.



edit on 12-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: gortex
I know aliens are here because of first-hand contact with aliens, starting in 1966.

Why not make a thread about it instead of making it a part of every single alien thread on ATS? Then just link it in your sig.


originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Oh, there is this little film as well, still not definitively proven fake, or not replicated:
deleted pictures of skinnybob


Would anyone like to comment on this?-

delete skinnybob video

There are at least three skinnybob threads that I know of on ATS. You should hunt a couple down. A certain person brings it up religiously, so it's not that people are ignoring the video ... it's that a lot of people have already had the conversation.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

No that is not a safe, nor even reasonable assumption. It's only a possibility, and talking in generalities tends to be unproductive anyway.


Hey, I'm with you on this one. I'm just saying that it's equally not to safe to assume every case has an ordinary explanation either. It's dangerous to do so. If you want to argue that 10 cases have probable ordinary causes that's fantastic that someone has taken the time to do the work. That doesn't necessarily mean that the other 1300 cases are ordinary as well which is what seems to be implied. Every case needs to be treated with equal and impartial scrutiny and let the facts eventually conclude either way.


a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8





How was it determined that eyewitness testimony of the giant squid was reliable? Only after physical evidence was found. The testimony itself wasn't enough to show it was a physical object.


So the eyewitness testimony was correct all along. Gee, and here you were trying to convince us how unreliable eyewitness testimony was!

Oh, irony...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: gortex
I know aliens are here because of first-hand contact with aliens, starting in 1966.

Why not make a thread about it instead of making it a part of every single alien thread on ATS? Then just link it in your sig.


Here's a better idea, why don't you make a thread about what you want me to say and where you want me to say it, and which conversations you want me to stay out of, then just link it in your sig.

In the meantime, I will post in any thread I feel I can add something of relevance and substance, and that includes my first-hand experiences.

Go censor someone else.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I have a hard time when threads go on the argumentative side. We are dealing with an extremely controversial subject, where most of accounts cannot be absolutely proven, either way, so there is no right answer.

Rather than bash other people's beliefs, we can just say, "Sorry, but that is not what I believe.", and hold on to what you believe is the true account. If certain facts emerge that challenge what you hold as the truth, then you are always welcome to modify them accordingly, but belittling someone else skews the discussion to where it should never go. IMHO.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt
Well that was unusual because I basically contradicted what you said and then you agreed with me. But with that clarification, yes it's a good idea to investigate the unexplained cases as much as you want to try to find the cause. If a cause can be found, fine, if not, then it's "unknown", not "probably aliens" which is what some would like us to believe.


originally posted by: Scdfa
So the eyewitness testimony was correct all along. Gee, and here you were trying to convince us how unreliable eyewitness testimony was!

Oh, irony...
No not irony, it's more like you missing the point.

The point was some eyewitness testimony is correct, some is incorrect (sometimes both at the same event like the multiple witness cases cited in my previous post), and the only way to sort out which is which is to get better evidence, which is what happened in the two cases cited, (and with giant squid).


originally posted by: Scdfa
Go censor someone else.
Suggesting you make a separate thread on a separate topic isn't censorship, rather I'd say it's the opposite, which is encouraging you to post a thread. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to, but I agree that your personal experience isn't exactly on topic in every single thread about aliens and UFOs.

edit on 12-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
In the meantime, I will post in any thread I feel I can add something of relevance and substance, and that includes my first-hand experiences.
Go censor someone else.

No one is censoring you. It's an honest suggestion as Arbitrageur says.

You keep referring to this personal experience you've had, so does it surprise you that someone would be genuinely interested in what that experience is? Personally (and probably for others) I don't ask about it because it heads towards the direction of derailing the thread from the OP. If we're discussing a photo, we're discussing a photo. We might like to discuss your experience, but then we're not discussing the photo. See what I mean?

If you had a link in your sig and a well written post detailing your personal experience we could:

1. Ask you relevant questions to the OP within the thread based off your thread. (Is X photo similar to Y experience? What did you think of Y book based on what you've seen? etc etc etc)

or

2. Go to your thread and ask questions when the curiosity arises.

Its the same reason I won't get into skinnybob here. Am more interested in what Jadestar, UnderKingsPeak, and Kandinsky have to say about the book and what Oberg has to say about the discussion they have been having.

If you do it, I'll totally have a read of it and no I won't be mean about it. Curious yes, mean no.
edit on 12-4-2015 by Pinke because: typo and end bit



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8





How was it determined that eyewitness testimony of the giant squid was reliable? Only after physical evidence was found. The testimony itself wasn't enough to show it was a physical object.


So the eyewitness testimony was correct all along. Gee, and here you were trying to convince us how unreliable eyewitness testimony was!

Oh, irony...

Yeah, I'm not going to repeat myself again if there's a comprehension problem and you can't grasp the point. I'm bored with that game.

Start a thread and post up your experience like everyone has been suggesting. It's counterproductive to repeatedly speak with authority of ET being on Earth through personal knowledge, while going through almost 400 posts without supporting it.







 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join