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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant



But people form their opinions in complex ways.


^^^ I agree with that point wholeheartedly.

The cultural side of how we interpret UFO sightings reports is often overlooked when we're in the trenches and fighting with each other. There's a sentiment that *whatever* side doesn't know enough, hasn't read enough, is uneducated or has their mind made up.

In my experience, this applies to most people (maybe all) as we become stuck in our own mindsets. It's there to see in this thread. Most members in here are well known to me and respected; they all have a lot of reading experience, contemplation-time and subject knowledge. I include you in that group too.

Despite that, we keep assuming that someone with whom we disagree is somehow unlearned and their opinions are knee-jerk. The reality is that many are well-read and have arrived at different conclusions through 'complex ways.'




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
But there are no cases of aliens to compare against. However, there are plenty of cases of misidentification to draw from. That is a huge difference. You can assemble all the odd cases you want, there is just no way to determine that any of them are due to aliens.

Most people would agree that there is something very strange and very real going on and it is against this background of knowledge that the whole thing is assessed, on both sides of the argument.

Yes, and that very strange thing might just be that our perceptions are not what we think they are.


Your first point is worth noting but you also say 'there are no cases of aliens to compare against'. Let's just call them ufonauts to keep away from the alien thing, for the moment. Some people say they have seen these ufonauts so you cannot say, with authority, that there are no cases of aliens/ufonauts. You can say there are none that are demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. But some will say that they have been demonstrated to their personal satisfaction. The truth of the matter is not determined by a majority consensus.

As for people not perceiving things properly. I think their perceptions are near the mark because what they describe corresponds to the photographs of ufos. They saw a thing like 'two saucers joined together at the rim', just like the photos show. So they are seeing the real thing. The only way around this is to debunk ALL the saucer photos and this is not easy because of the accompanying witnesses and multiple witnesses and testimony etc.

Do you see what I'm getting at? There may be no proof but evidence is mounting at such a rate is has become tantamount to proof. How long can people resist this?
edit on 13-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I guess the conclusion I am coming to is: "what exactly is PROOF of alien existence?

1) An alien landing in the middle of a football field during the Superbowl being witnessed by millions?

2) The government admitting aliens are real and showcasing all captured alien paraphernalia for the masses to dissect?

3) Thousands of alien craft& beings lining the skies and the lands for all to see, touch, smell and feel?

What, pray exactly, is proof?

How subjective will our interpretation be if all 3 criteria listed above are met?

I get the feeling many skeptics will debunk and dismiss all listed categories as contrived scams, Hollywood props, government crafts, swamp gas etc, etc.

So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?



edit on 13-4-2015 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: EnPassant


But people form their opinions in complex ways.

^^^ I agree with that point wholeheartedly.
The cultural side of how we interpret UFO sightings reports is often overlooked when we're in the trenches and fighting with each other. There's a sentiment that *whatever* side doesn't know enough, hasn't read enough, is uneducated or has their mind made up.

In my experience, this applies to most people (maybe all) as we become stuck in our own mindsets. It's there to see in this thread. Most members in here are well known to me and respected; they all have a lot of reading experience, contemplation-time and subject knowledge. I include you in that group too.

Despite that, we keep assuming that someone with whom we disagree is somehow unlearned and their opinions are knee-jerk. The reality is that many are well-read and have arrived at different conclusions through 'complex ways.'


Well said, and I agree with the drift of your argument but the interesting thing is that the people who would have us believe that there is nothing 'unworldly' to this whole thing don't have an alternative hypothesis. Their only hypothesis is that the people are mistaken, essentially. They don't offer an alternative hypothesis or, if they do, it is the hypothesis that people are wrong. It is a negation of hypothesis rather than a positive solution in itself. You say people reach 'conclusions' but they don't really, they just say other's conclusions are wrong. (But 'conclusion' is probably too strong a word on any side of the fence at this point.)

Another point is that those who say there are ufonauts (be they alien or otherwise) need only one true flying saucer photo or one true encounter. The counter argument however needs to argue that EVERY photo and encounter is really a misperception or hoax or whatever. This is the great weakness of the counter argument, such as it is. It would have us believe that people are gone bonkers all over the place, seeing beings in flying saucers and all the photos are hoaxed (the clear ones that is.) So it is by no means an even or balanced argument. It's a question of weirdness on one side and incredulity on the other. It is a very unsymmetrical argument and this is worth pondering: ALL FLYING SAUCER PHOTOS ARE HOAXES ??? This is what is to be proved. This is one reason I say it cannot be a simple case by case solution.
edit on 13-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma

My way of seeing it is that in the absence of PROOF the evidence can take on such force of persuasion it is tantamount to proof. There is now such a preponderance of evidence in support of intelligently controlled craft that it is becoming impossible to deny it anymore. All there can be at this point is a defiant "Prove it" when proof is quickly becoming little more than an academic exercise.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant
A well versed skeptic would say a preponderance of evidence of intelligently controlled craft does not equate to aliens piloting them. They could very well be human driven/operated.

At what point do we get beyond that to more tangible stuff?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant



It is against the background of the whole phenomena that people make hypothesis


i think that to make a case for 'nuts and bolts' aliens you have be very selective concerning what aspects of the phenomena you include and exclude - and even then you still need to make giant leaps in logic

the real problem imo starts with a lack of consensus about the proper extent of the field - if that could be agreed we would still need to sort the graminoids from the astro-turf - maybe then we could make some progress with it



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jaellma
a reply to: EnPassant
A well versed skeptic would say a preponderance of evidence of intelligently controlled craft does not equate to aliens piloting them. They could very well be human driven/operated.
At what point do we get beyond that to more tangible stuff?


The evidence goes back to the dirigibles in the late 19th century and before. It is not likely that all are man made and those that are are copies of the non terrestrial ones (whether they are alien or not is another question, they are not folk as we know them.)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
That's the part that always gets me, the "ALL THE FLYING SAUCER PHOTOS ARE HOAXES?" We have to face it, there are numerous photos, numerous videos, and if you don't want to refer to them at all, we have old renaissance paintings seemingly to depict something unusual going on in the skies, not to mention countless stories and cave depictions just to mention a few. All forms of pictures of man trying to communicate what he has seen according to their own times.

With all of that considered to me, it would almost be ludicrous to think none of that should amount to any more then things with a perfectly good explanation of anything except for what they might actually be portraying to begin with. Not to mention that isxa pretty high number count for there not to be any probability that not one out of thousands is the real thing or portraying the real thing.

All that in itself tells me something is going on that is a lot bigger than ourselves. Quite the ego of us to think we are the only thing riding in this rodeo.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?


a) Actions by ET which are unmistakably by ET.
b) Diplomatic relations with exchange of ambassadors.

In other words, actions by ET, not humans.
edit on 13-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: EnPassant


It is against the background of the whole phenomena that people make hypothesis

i think that to make a case for 'nuts and bolts' aliens you have be very selective concerning what aspects of the phenomena you include and exclude - and even then you still need to make giant leaps in logic

the real problem imo starts with a lack of consensus about the proper extent of the field - if that could be agreed we would still need to sort the graminoids from the astro-turf - maybe then we could make some progress with it


If it could be shown that some of these craft are physical (Roswell?) that would go a long way to proving the ETH.
Also, if the military have made physical copies of these craft, the originals are physical too and are therefore 'alien' in the sense that they were not made on earth.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

a) Actions by ET which are unmistakably by ET.
b) Diplomatic relations with exchange of ambassadors.
In other words, actions by ET, not humans.


One genuine flying saucer photo - the rest follows logically from this.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Let's just call them ufonauts to keep away from the alien thing, for the moment. Some people say they have seen these ufonauts so you cannot say, with authority, that there are no cases of aliens/ufonauts. You can say there are none that are demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. But some will say that they have been demonstrated to their personal satisfaction. The truth of the matter is not determined by a majority consensus.

I have no problem entertaining or even believing in mysterious unearthly entities but let me clarify. There are no verifiable cases of aliens. There is no single case where we can all look at it and say "yes, that is an alien and we should use that particular case as a baseline for when we are trying to determine if any other case is an alien". There are undoubtedly a wide range of personal experiences in which the experiencer becomes convinced that what they experienced was alien. The problem is that there is no way to differentiate between "real" and a misperception like a "hallucination". We can blur the lines of what is "real" if you like and I have no problem doing that either since I kind of live in the blurred reality anyway. But we are talking quantifiable evidence and there is none.


As for people not perceiving things properly. I think their perceptions are near the mark because what they describe corresponds to the photographs of ufos. They saw a thing like 'two saucers joined together at the rim', just like the photos show. So they are seeing the real thing. The only way around this is to debunk ALL the saucer photos and this is not easy because of the accompanying witnesses and multiple witnesses and testimony etc.

The way around this is to actually verify ONE photo as being authentic and I have no idea what photos you are referring to anyway.


Do you see what I'm getting at? There may be no proof but evidence is mounting at such a rate is has become tantamount to proof. How long can people resist this?

Yes, I see what you are getting at but people have bee trying to get at this thing you are getting at ever since there have been people. The "mountain of evidence" is not the exclusive property of UFO believers either since there are whole branches of psychology and neurology that consider this a mountain of evidence for human misperception among other things. Its not a matter of resistance, its a matter of recognizing ambiguity.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
Do you see what I'm getting at? There may be no proof but evidence is mounting at such a rate is has become tantamount to proof. How long can people resist this?
There is proof of UFOs. But we don't know what they are initially, and with further investigation 95% turn out to be natural phenomena and man-made objects. There is still 5% or so that remain unidentified, but what is there to resist? If we don't know what they are, we don't know what they are. Sure there's proof of that 5% but I don't know what it means other than we saw or photographed some things we don't know how to explain.

There's also the issue that disclosure of secret military craft may be something like 5 decades behind when the craft are operational, and some of the declassified material shows the Air force had plans for saucer shaped craft, besides the Avrocar. We also know of plans for stealth blimps or rigid hull airships but don't really know what secret versions might be operational.

How to build a flying saucer

Recently declassified records from the Aeronautical Systems Division, USAF (RG 342 – Records of United States Air Force Commands, Activities, and Organizations) reveal some surprising, perhaps never-before-seen images:

So that's from 1956 and wasn't declassified until 2012, that's a 56 year delay. How can we possibly know what classified craft are or were in the skies, with that kind of delay in declassification?

By the way the only UFO photos I've seen that show that much structural detail seem to be hoaxed. If you've got 3 or 4 UFO photos from Leslie Kean's book you think are really convincing of something, what are they?


edit on 13-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma




So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

That's a good question and one I have asked myself , the only answer I can come up with is I'll know it when I see it.
I suppose you could say the only absolute proof would be seeing an ET walking or slithering out of the ship you've just seen land but it may not need to be as upfront as that , hard to say until it happens.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It is not necessary to have a live being to establish the case. There are more subtle ways of assessing the situation.

The counter argument is that these witnesses are deluded, or their brain's wiring is gone wrong or they are mistaken or whatever.

Having looked at the situation I find it very hard to believe their testimony is in error. I find it hard to believe that these otherwise normal people are seeing things.

I made the point earlier that you cannot assess items in isolation only. The background of the whole phenomena has a bearing on how we assess testimony.

Their testimonies are congruent with all this background knowledge. Photos of flying saucers exist, credible people have said the powers that be are keeping secrets about this. Multiple witness sightings rule out the neurological business.

In other words, all the pieces of the phenomena are consistent with each other and the fact that they are lends great credibility to the veracity of witness accounts. One part of the phenomena backs up all the other parts and the whole picture emerges. This is, I think, the best way to understand the situation.

If the whole thing is to be debunked you must have the following-

1. Photos are fakes.
2. Credible people, high up in the system, are lying when they say it is being covered up.
3. Witnesses are not able to understand what they are looking at.

So, at least three different explanations have to be devised for the whole phenomena and these three pieces don't fit together convincingly. The hypothesis, in contrast, is a single hypothesis that explains the whole phenomena (whether that hypothesis is ETH or something else.)
edit on 13-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?


* Multiple photos or images of something unusual taken by several non-anonymous people at the same time from different perspectives.
* Something physical (an alien would be nice) with a clear chain of evidence specifically relating the thing to that sighting.
* Verification by a variety of independent experts that the artifact is not from Earth.
* Confirmation of the findings by someone in authority, the higher the better (President, Pope, etc.)
* The potential for me, personally, to go and touch the physical evidence in question.

Is that too much? Too difficult? We're talking about verifying the existence of something questionable. Why settle for less?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: EnPassant


It is against the background of the whole phenomena that people make hypothesis

i think that to make a case for 'nuts and bolts' aliens you have be very selective concerning what aspects of the phenomena you include and exclude - and even then you still need to make giant leaps in logic

the real problem imo starts with a lack of consensus about the proper extent of the field - if that could be agreed we would still need to sort the graminoids from the astro-turf - maybe then we could make some progress with it


If it could be shown that some of these craft are physical (Roswell?) that would go a long way to proving the ETH.
Also, if the military have made physical copies of these craft, the originals are physical too and are therefore 'alien' in the sense that they were not made on earth.


to prove the eth you need et - just one body available for anatomical/biochemical analysis by the relevant experts would be enough - that couldn't be faked or misinterpreted
edit on 13-4-2015 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

It is not necessary to have a live being to establish the case. There are more subtle ways of assessing the situation.

No its not and I didn't say that.



The counter argument is that these witnesses are deluded, or their brain's wiring is gone wrong or they are mistaken or whatever.

Don't start that because that is entirely false. It is actually common knowledge that people can hallucinate without there being anything wrong with them. en.wikipedia.org...

Anomalous experiences, such as so-called benign hallucinations, may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.

It is now widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance.

Unless you have something to support your "counter argument" it's probably about time to drop it. And then are you saying that the 95% of the reported UFOs that are later identified are made by people that are delusional?


Having looked at the situation I find it very hard to believe their testimony is in error. I find it hard to believe that these otherwise normal people are seeing things.

I suggest following the link above and start investigating if that is true or not.


If the whole thing is to be debunked you must have the following-

1. Photos are fakes.
2. Credible people, high up in the system, are lying when they say it is being covered up.
3. Witnesses are not able to understand what they are looking at.


1. Provide a photo that is verified to be authentic.
2. Lying is not the only explanation.
3. There are plenty of cases that have been shown to be misidentifications of one kind or another where there were initially thought to be aliens. The only difference between those cases and the ones you are talking about is that they have been identified as not being aliens.


So, at least three different explanations have to be devised for the whole phenomena and these three pieces don't fit together convincingly. The hypothesis, in contrast, is a single hypothesis that explains the whole phenomena (whether that hypothesis is ETH or something else.)

Why must there be a single hypothesis to explain the whole phenomenon? Because that would be impossible? I can sum it up in one word. ambiguity.


edit on 13-4-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

even if the footage is genuine it doesn't prove skinny bob is an alien - morphologicaly he appears as close to a human as a chimpanzee is - if his internal organs, body chemistry and dna were as similar to a human as a chimpanzee's i think we'd be forced to conclude that he was a product of life on earth - a time traveller might be one possibility
edit on 13-4-2015 by aynock because: filled out



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join