What [if anything] does the existence of unsolved cases really prove?

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa


Personally, if I were routinely being abducted by aliens, a camera would be at the top of my list. But that's just dumb ol' me.

I don't get what makes people think this would be so simple.
If you were an advanced species and wanted to remain inconspicuous, don't you think that precautions would be taken to disable or disrupt simple electronic devices to remain that way? There are reports of ufos capable of disabling nuclear missiles and weapon control systems so simple gadgets like that shouldn't be a problem.

On top of that, who's going to accept a photo like that to be valid? Out of all the alleged photos presuming to be images of either craft or aliens, what has ever been validated? If he posted that on here I can see everyone rushing to play the Phage debunk game. And that's if the photo will ever see the light of day to begin with without being confiscated after being brought to whatever local intelligence agency or media outlet.

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

It's this kind of silly nonsensical excuses that show the lengths you have to go to work around logical questions. If it's not stunned neighbors that have lost the ability to function during their sighting, it's electronic interference, or it's the secret agencies that swoop in and take the evidence. Many convenient excuses.

I'm not clear on your connection to Scdfa, but I'm curious to the excuse you'll find for aliens showing up during family outings if part of their objective is to be inconspicuous. Alien mind control?

I think it is becoming more obvious every year, that consciousness creates reality, as a growing number of physicists are producing observational and mathematical "mini-proofs" to that effect at an inflationary scale. At the fundamental levels, we have basically proven that the uncertainty principle is not just a theory anymore. We have quantum entanglement experiments showing predictable results, and even some workable quantum computers that are using these theories to produce results.... It essentially proves that we constantly modify phenomena that changes it's behavior by merely observing it.

In essence, we create our own reality and step into it. It really means that anything we can think of, will some day come to pass. So, time travel seems to be inevitable. If that is so, we are being visited all the time by "us" in the future.

Many of today's Anomalous Arial Events, are most likely us. Perhaps not all, but probably in the 99 percentiles.

To me it shows an explaination that is really in the set of reality, and given that observation, what would be more likely... Meeting E.T. or US in the Future?... given any specific occurrence. Of course IMHO, but with profound evidence.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa


Personally, if I were routinely being abducted by aliens, a camera would be at the top of my list. But that's just dumb ol' me.

Don't be so hard on yourself, it's not a completely dumb idea, the trouble is it just doesn't work. Or at least it hasn't seemed to work yet.

And it doesn't work for probably a couple of reasons.

Reason one. These aliens are smarter. They're smarter than all of us. And not by a little bit, either, these guys are way out in front.
They are not rabbits raiding a garden that you can set snares for.
They are not tigers in the jungle that will get caught on film by tree-mounted cameras.
They are even advanced enough to understand our futuristic nanny-cam technology, believe it or not.

Reason two. They know everything you think. Whether it is biological or technological, they possess telepathy that enables them to read you like an open book. Instantly, and deeply, they know everything you are up to.

Reason three. If the abductee has an implant, his every conversation may be monitored.

Reason four. As it has been widely reported, the presence of aliens or perhaps their vehicles seems to have an electro-magnetic effect on cars, watches, cameras, compasses, and most devices. This could prevent almost any recording of an alien encounter, at least from close range.

Reason five. There may be an intersection of planes of reality, or some dilation or contraction of time happening during an alien encounter, these concepts are out of my league, but things occur differently during these minutes. I can only imagine these energies could harm efforts to record through conventional means.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

Conspicuous? I agree. You might be surprised to know how many of these events occur in broad daylight.

Kinda dumb, you ask? I don't know about that, these beings are anything but dumb. All I can say is there are things they worry about and things they don't worry about.
Does a dog-catcher care if other dogs see him taking one dog in?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

My curiosity is we have the capability to manipulate light but an alien species that crossed hundreds of light years to get here can't make their craft invisible? That's always been my problem we've learned how to build active Camouflage but aliens appear to be to stupid. You would think they could make sure they aren't seen at all.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

Conspicuous? I agree. You might be surprised to know how many of these events occur in broad daylight.

Kinda dumb, you ask? I don't know about that, these beings are anything but dumb. All I can say is there are things they worry about and things they don't worry about.
Does a dog-catcher care if other dogs see him taking one dog in?

Dogs can't organize and fight back if they are truly abducting people don't think a defense wouldn't be mounted. One thing humans are really good at learning how to kill things. It's usually us but if aliens became a threat don't think we are defenseless hard to stop a rail gun for example.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm sure they could, if they cared. That was what the dog-catcher analogy was about.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm sure they could, if they cared. That was what the dog-catcher analogy was about.

Bad one they gave us over 5o yrs to prepare and waited until we developed thing more dangerous than nukes doesn't make sense. Sorry logic fail if your going to go taking people and doing experiments your only safety is staying hidden. If they exist you can bet we've developed things that can hurt them now. Especially if they supposedly crashed because a lighting storm. And of abductions are occurring why for so long counter productive at this point.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

Conspicuous? I agree. You might be surprised to know how many of these events occur in broad daylight.

Kinda dumb, you ask? I don't know about that, these beings are anything but dumb. All I can say is there are things they worry about and things they don't worry about.
Does a dog-catcher care if other dogs see him taking one dog in?

Dogs can't organize and fight back if they are truly abducting people don't think a defense wouldn't be mounted. One thing humans are really good at learning how to kill things. It's usually us but if aliens became a threat don't think we are defenseless hard to stop a rail gun for example.

LOL, Well guess what, no defense mounted. I was first abducted fifty years ago.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm sure they could, if they cared. That was what the dog-catcher analogy was about.

Bad one they gave us over 5o yrs to prepare and waited until we developed thing more dangerous than nukes doesn't make sense. Sorry logic fail if your going to go taking people and doing experiments your only safety is staying hidden. If they exist you can bet we've developed things that can hurt them now. Especially if they supposedly crashed because a lighting storm. And of abductions are occurring why for so long counter productive at this point.

Um, okay then. I'm not understanding much of this post, but it seems like you have it all figured out to your own satisfaction, so I will leave you be.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

Conspicuous? I agree. You might be surprised to know how many of these events occur in broad daylight.

Kinda dumb, you ask? I don't know about that, these beings are anything but dumb. All I can say is there are things they worry about and things they don't worry about.
Does a dog-catcher care if other dogs see him taking one dog in?

Dogs can't organize and fight back if they are truly abducting people don't think a defense wouldn't be mounted. One thing humans are really good at learning how to kill things. It's usually us but if aliens became a threat don't think we are defenseless hard to stop a rail gun for example.

LOL, Well guess what, no defense mounted. I was first abducted fifty years ago.

First and you allowed more than one that seems strange. what makes you so special that they couldn't learn everything about you after the first one?? @that's the other thing I don't get if they really wanted to study you so bad they could clone you. I mean we could do it why can't they.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

Conspicuous? I agree. You might be surprised to know how many of these events occur in broad daylight.

Kinda dumb, you ask? I don't know about that, these beings are anything but dumb. All I can say is there are things they worry about and things they don't worry about.
Does a dog-catcher care if other dogs see him taking one dog in?

Dogs can't organize and fight back if they are truly abducting people don't think a defense wouldn't be mounted. One thing humans are really good at learning how to kill things. It's usually us but if aliens became a threat don't think we are defenseless hard to stop a rail gun for example.

LOL, Well guess what, no defense mounted. I was first abducted fifty years ago.

First and you allowed more than one that seems strange. what makes you so special that they couldn't learn everything about you after the first one?? @that's the other thing I don't get if they really wanted to study you so bad they could clone you. I mean we could do it why can't they.

You should read up on the subject of alien abduction, if you think people are only abducted once. And they don't abduct people to "study" them, in my experience.

I'm not being condescending, the more you know about the issue the more interesting the conversations you can have.

a reply to: Scdfa

You should read up on the subject of alien abduction, if you think people are only abducted once. And they don't abduct people to "study" them, in my experience.

Peaked my interest.
So, if people are not "studied", then what would you say was the abductor's agenda?
If you do not mind relaying that.

Just remember the UFO phenomena is testable. I do agree that the unsolved cases don't prove nor disprove the UFO phenomena but it does give it some circumstantial evidence, and if you take all the of the best evidence together it is pretty convincing.

Yes Aliens may know how to disable "the nanny cam" but they have to find it first, what if you get someone who get another person, unbeknownst to you, to take many different inexpensive cameras and put them in concentric rings around your house up to a mile to two miles away in places which you don't know about? Will the "aliens" then have to do some detective work and find this stranger and find out where he/she put the cameras? What if they are in several people's houses, what if there are so many in such a large area?

Here's the deal, whether or not you are being abducted, there is something very real, something that the world secret government hasn't told you, some nasty little business, a dirty truth: nearly every electronic device can spy on you. Oh, and they have been able to spy on you since about the early 90s.

What worse, is that they can read thoughts. People may say, it's impossible, well no it is not impossible, there are already researchers who can actually do this (to a limited extent):

Reconstructing speech from human auditory cortex

It has been reported that the "secret government" has technology that is about 50 years ahead of what is available publicly, so it isn't hard to believe that if we extend this public research 50 years into the future, that they will be able to read thoughts at a distance.

Many "targeted individuals" have reported what they term as "remote neural monitoring" basically the ability to read thoughts, so this is something that is possible. This may be how the U.S. government and possibly the aliens may be able to monitor you, if you are truly being abducted.

So how does this work, well all humans basically act like radio transmitters, neuron impulses in the brain cause ions to flow, and anytime charged particles accelerate, they emit radio waves, hence EEG and MEG readings that can be detected at a distance. Some "targeted individuals" have reported implants that they believe can transmit thoughts, so that may also be another way to track you. The technology is so small, almost everything can monitor you, including credit cards, eyeglasses, possibly cash money, newer books, your car, key fobs, refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters. You can circumvent all this simply by leaving your house carrying only the clothes on your back, a metal key, and nothing else.

Some people may say aliens aren't like rabbits or deer or whatever, but they too have patterns and given enough sensors in enough places eventually you too will be able to catch a glimpse, ranchers have seen (what appears to be UFOs) for decades and so have pilots, air force radar operators, regular people, etc.

Even IF they can disable electronics they can only do so in a local area, not to mention that they have been seen on radar and caught on cameras (ok objects of intelligent design performing anomalous maneuvers) so it is possible, you just have to be clever enough.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa


Personally, if I were routinely being abducted by aliens, a camera would be at the top of my list. But that's just dumb ol' me.

I don't get what makes people think this would be so simple.
If you were an advanced species and wanted to remain inconspicuous, don't you think that precautions would be taken to disable or disrupt simple electronic devices to remain that way? There are reports of ufos capable of disabling nuclear missiles and weapon control systems so simple gadgets like that shouldn't be a problem.

On top of that, who's going to accept a photo like that to be valid? Out of all the alleged photos presuming to be images of either craft or aliens, what has ever been validated? If he posted that on here I can see everyone rushing to play the Phage debunk game. And that's if the photo will ever see the light of day to begin with without being confiscated after being brought to whatever local intelligence agency or media outlet.

Kinda dumb of an advanced species that wants to remain inconspicuous to fly in front of a group of picnicking neighbors in broad daylight, don't you think? That's down right conspicuous.

It's this kind of silly nonsensical excuses that show the lengths you have to go to work around logical questions. If it's not stunned neighbors that have lost the ability to function during their sighting, it's electronic interference, or it's the secret agencies that swoop in and take the evidence. Many convenient excuses.

I'm not clear on your connection to Scdfa, but I'm curious to the excuse you'll find for aliens showing up during family outings if part of their objective is to be inconspicuous. Alien mind control?

It seems your mind is trapped inside of that limited proverbial box of thinking.
Go ahead, place your faith in what the witnesses have to say....that's if they remember anything. No wait, that won't even matter because they'll most likely be ridiculed anyway as having "perception problems". In that sense, it won't even matter if ET is inconspicuous or not, they have humans who will attempt to debunk the sighting anyway. Thanks to that, problem solved for them with only minimal effort put in. They can afford to be as blatant as they want.

Electronical interference nonsensical you say? I see. It's more like you just outright ignoring the fact that military craft as well as automobile functions have been rendered inoperable when in close proximity to ufos, which indicate electronical interference capabilities.

Secret agencies swooping in to take evidence just a convenient excuse? Maybe you are just unaware of the secrecy involved. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have confiscated photographic evidence from everyone from the average civilian to military personnel to astronauts. But hey, what does it matter. Like I said earlier, what photos, that have managed to make it past those barriers, are authenticated? Alleged photo evidence on this site isn't going to turn anyones head.

The only connection I have to Scdfa is the fact that our objectives are similar, the raising of awareness. That much should be obvious by now.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Yeah coming in with excuses that they are to smart to be caught on film with zero proof isn't going to get a lot of people to believe you. When you make a claim like aliens abducted me your going to have to show something. You basically end up describing a being that can walk through walls not be seen on cameras. Apparently have the ability to park a spaceship on someone's roof without neighbors noticing. And these beings apparently traveled billions of miles to kidnap people.

Now this has been going on for centuries in roam it would be a succubus. In The middle ages lillith was a common visitor at night. Later it moved to witches and now today aliens. These accounts have been going on and are very similar in details only the subject changes. Well there is a reason for this your mind creates this illusion. Here is a good place to start reading.

Now when did the change happen from witch to aliens well it started in July 1946, "Planet Comics" ran a strip in which aliens used a luminous tractor beam to kidnap a voluptuous female earthling, whom they called Specimen 9. They tell her the abduction is part of "Project Survival," and as they steer their spaceship toward what looks like Saturn, the leader remarks, "Now home. And if you find our methods ruthless, Specimen 9, it is because our needs are desperate." These theme wad repeated several times after that including blockbusters like invasion of the body snatchers. So this whole aliens kidnap people become ingrained in our psyche.

www.sleepeducation.com...

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
Michael Swords (Professor, Ph.D. in biochem, student of UFOs for several decades, etc.) writes about the psychology of UFO denial over in his wonderful blog. Here's part of the introduction:

[T]he staged reluctance that people have towards the UFO phenomenon [example: accepting none, or accepting some, or accepting anything regardless] kept coming up over and over. The stage at which a person would seem to "draw the line" seemed usually NOT to be data driven but rather some sort of deep emotional thing. That is, it seemed to depend on some quality of the person which had little to do with any particular case or group of incidents---subjectivity totally trumping objectivity.

There are several problems with this assessment. The biggest problem is that he talks about forming opinions which are not data driven. Before I had the data I do now, I thought some UFOs were probably alien. It's actually the a data-driven approach which which led to not only my skepticism but that of many others who came to ATS as "believers", conducted research on the data, and formed a data-driven skeptical outlook.

Also I noticed you didn't answer my question about which UFO case is alien. The Yukon case was considered one of the top UFO cases on record not that long ago, and look at where we are now that we figured out what this structured craft seen by many witnesses really is:

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


This is the kind of data I'm talking about, so if you think my skepticism is not data-driven as your post suggests, this is a huge, huge misunderstanding.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

[T]he staged reluctance that people have towards the UFO phenomenon [example: accepting none, or accepting some, or accepting anything regardless] kept coming up over and over. The stage at which a person would seem to "draw the line" seemed usually NOT to be data driven but rather some sort of deep emotional thing. That is, it seemed to depend on some quality of the person which had little to do with any particular case or group of incidents---subjectivity totally trumping objectivity.

He is just stating the obvious fact that we all have biases. That's been known for some time now and exactly why we have science and scientific advances. The actual "psychology" is when someone reads something like this and instead of applying it to themselves, they project it onto someone else. Not a trait I see you exhibit.

a reply to: dragonridr

You're really trying to pin these abductions (which have been studied and researched) on "sleep hallucinations"? Then you go to "since we've been watching alien movies it's ingrained in our psyche" gibberish. Just when I thought I've heard it all. LOL! Your post doesn't even warrant a detailed response, It can be seen that you're being willfully dense on this subject. As a matter of fact, I really typed too much as it is, should've just left it at LOL.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This is the kind of data I'm talking about, so if you think my skepticism is not data-driven as your post suggests, this is a huge, huge misunderstanding.

There's no misunderstanding. You think that a cloud adequately explains the JAL1628 case, and that tells me quite a bit about how 'data-driven' your 'skepticism' is. Also, I referred you to MANY cases. Saying I didn't answer your question there is a nice way to score points though....

I've learned over the years that there's little need to discuss UFOs with certain kinds of people. It's like trying to debate a young Earth creationist who keeps insisting he's being completely reasonable. Your views, after all, really are more like a matter of faith. They can't possibly be all that data-driven, can they, since you have no actual first hand data.