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.

 

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

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

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.


You should really examine your comments about "others" and the shortcomings you think "they" exhibit. If you are going to play psychologist you might want to brush up on some basic defense mechanisms.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2]
en.m.wikipedia.org...




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
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.
Yes there is obviously still misunderstanding. I admit I'm not the best graphic artist since it's not my profession, but since the lights Captain Terauchi saw were always in the direction of an airport, and what he depicted resembled distorted airport lights, I hypothesized that it seemed at least somewhat plausible that through some perhaps unusual atmospheric conditions he could have been seeing airport lights, as I illustrated here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The captain's drawing is on top, my illustration is on the bottom.

If you interpreted that as a cloud I guess I need to work on my illustration skills, hence misunderstanding. It was supposed to look like distorted runway lights with a gap in the middle where the two runways at right angles intersect. By the way that is a photograph of real airport lights that I processed to simulate some atmospheric distortion.


edit on 28-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
You should really examine your comments about "others" and the shortcomings you think "they" exhibit. If you are going to play psychologist you might want to brush up on some basic defense mechanisms.


Ooh, you really showed me, Zeta. I've just learned quite a lesson, so thank you. I guess I need to go do some serious thinking now, huh? ....

Actually, the problem here is that the little band of so-called 'skeptics' in here that ransack every thread -- "show me the evidence! There is no evidence!" and therefore don't you all dare speculate -- are not used to getting it thrown back at you. Any reasonable person can tolerate genuine skepticism; no one in here should tolerate ridicule, however, but ridicule seems to have somehow become the default. Coming much more frequently from the deniers... the "D-Team". I even saw you call another member an 'a-hole' a few weeks ago (without consequence, by the way -- it was a different post, not the one of yours that was removed, IIRC). And that 'a-hole's crime against you was... disagreeing with you in a way you've not had to get used to in here, even though everyone else has had to get used to receiving it from you and the D-Team.

It doesn't matter how loud you talk, because truth always seems to find a way to make itself known.
edit on 28-5-2015 by TeaAndStrumpets because: tags



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

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.


I've learned the exact same thing.

And yet I persist...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes there is obviously still misunderstanding. I admit I'm not the best graphic artist since it's not my profession, but since the lights Captain Terauchi saw were always in the direction of an airport, and what he depicted resembled distorted airport lights, I hypothesized that it seemed at least somewhat plausible that through some perhaps unusual atmospheric conditions he could have been seeing airport lights... If you interpreted that as a cloud I guess I need to work on my illustration skills, hence misunderstanding.


I guess I misunderstood you when you said things like this back in that thread:

"That would be enough to be convincing, but there's more. There's a satellite image of the cloud. And add to that the fact that the radar returns all point to that cloud, it's so overwhelming I have little doubt about the cloud part of the explanation."


That aircrew had thousands of landings between them, by the way. If there had been an 'image' of VASI/PAPI lights up in the sky, they would've recognized them immediately. Those lights appear on most runways, even at little mom and pop airfields....

And you didn't just "hypothesize that it seemed at least somewhat plausible" that it was a cloud + illusion; you shouted down and ignored anyone who disagreed with you. Nice try at re-branding your product though.
edit on 28-5-2015 by TeaAndStrumpets because: tags



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
I've learned the exact same thing [that there's little need to discuss UFOs with certain kinds of people].

And yet I persist...


I just randomly sampled 10 comments from your posting history, and over half of them appear to be one or two lines of text, with most others not being much more than that. A disturbing portion, by the way, seemed to just be you and ZetaRediculan piling on some other member or caressing one another's thoughts.

Thanks for your valuable contributions.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets
I was just suggesting that you evaluate your own posts and your own psychology and not the psychology of others. You can continue to attack me if you wish but its really you just displaying your own issues and really has nothing to do with me.



edit on 28-5-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

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.


I've learned the exact same thing.

And yet I persist...


oooooo good one....very caressable



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets
What does that cloud have to do with my illustration of airport lights? Do you still think those airports lights I illustrated showed a cloud and is this why you said "You think that a cloud adequately explains the JAL1628 case"?

The co-pilot recognized that the lights and the radar reflection were not related, but I'm not sure you do.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Your own accounts might gain credibility if you could specify any other human being who believes they describe actual events. And as you claim felonious assaults ocurred, what's the attitude to the stories by local/state/federal law enforcement agencies?


What nonsense. As if the "authorities" have anything to do with the truth of any UFO-related matters.

Here's some truth for you and the rest of the D-Team (the deniers), one I've recently been reminded of:
Every time anyone brings up Special Report 14 or asks any of you if the Condon Report conclusions match the data found within it, you scatter like startled deer. Why? If the truth were on your side, it seems that wouldn't be the case.

Keep ridiculing though, by all means. History is being recorded, and it won't be on your side. I'm certain.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets
What does that cloud have to do with my illustration of airport lights? Do you still think those airports lights I illustrated showed a cloud and is this why you said "You think that a cloud adequately explains the JAL1628 case"?

The co-pilot recognized that the lights and the radar reflection were not related, but I'm not sure you do.


Your illustration did not post, or at least is not showing up on my screen, even though other images do.

Regardless, the 'cloud' is what I recall you leaning on most heavily back in that JAL thread, as that's what's supposed to explain the radar skin paints. A quick perusal confirms that.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Every time anyone brings up Special Report 14 or asks any of you if the Condon Report conclusions match the data found within it, you scatter like startled deer



Do you have an example? I have no problem dismissing the Condon report. I think its pretty clear that the conclusions dont match.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets
I was just suggesting that you evaluate your own posts and your own psychology and not the psychology of others. You can continue to attack me if you wish but its really you just displaying your own issues and really has nothing to do with me.


I'm well aware of my own psychology with respect to this issue, as well as its evolution over the decades. Thanks.

And no words I can say to you could possibly be as rude and as insulting or as demonstrative of narrow-mindedness as the things you and the rest of the D-Team say to people, in that snarky & ridiculing tone, hundreds of times per year: that these people did not see what was clearly right in front of their face... that they couldn't have seen that... because you (though lacking even a shred of first-hand data) have managed to penetrate the nature of reality for all of us. You haven't.

It's not coincidental that the nature of this 'reality' you advocate and try to impose on us all seems to perfectly conform to the boundaries set by very typical and totally understandable human fears. It's natural... to a point. But those human boundaries do not in any way confine or define reality.

Embrace it, Zeta. I know it's all a little scary -- we're not totally in control of our own destiny, after all -- but I maintain that even a somewhat disturbing truth will always outrank and outshine any comfortable, fear-based delusions.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Do you have an example? I have no problem dismissing the Condon report. I think its pretty clear that the conclusions dont match.


Well then +10 points for some intellectual honesty there. Although... without the Condon Report to buttress your attitudes, what is it then that justifies the ridicule of and science's dismissal of the topic?

And you want an example of the deer-like scattering? Well... this very thread.
edit on 28-5-2015 by TeaAndStrumpets because: tags. I cannot get a quote within a quote to save my life.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

I'm well aware of my own psychology with respect to this issue, as well as its evolution over the decades. Thanks.
With every post, you are making it clear that you aren't. Those are things that you project. They come from you. If you want to call me out on a particular post I made from month ago, that's fine. I moved on from that and no longer respond to the poster. Im human. But your other comments are grotesquely distorted and not really reality based.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Although... without the Condon Report to buttress your attitudes, what is it then that justifies the ridicule of and science's dismissal of the topic?

I think that is the problem you and a few others are having. The people that are posting here, do not represent "science's dismissal of the topic?". I know a lot of people that you could call "scientists" and none of them would think of posting here. Who wants to be called names over and over? You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy in a way. You complain that "science" is not taking the topic seriously and when they do, you call them "deniers" when they disagree. That in itself would cause any reasonable person to "scatter". So I don't think its the "alien reality" that's the issue.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

If I can interject here, you are both fighting and occupy roughly the same perspectives.

T&S, you value the ETH and, believe it or not, Zeta believes that there's something behind the UFO sightings reports that isn't yet explainable by prosaic causes.

Whilst you may not be on the same side, neither of you are fundamentally in opposition.


Here's a little gem from the BB files that was 'unexplained.' 22nd April 1966. Kid wakes up and notices a flashing object outside at around 9pm. Others go outside and describe an object (one of three) over the school grounds that looks like a 'metal plate.' Whatever it was allegedly hovered above them and was also seen by the police when they turned up. More here.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: draknoir2
I've learned the exact same thing [that there's little need to discuss UFOs with certain kinds of people].

And yet I persist...


I just randomly sampled 10 comments from your posting history, and over half of them appear to be one or two lines of text, with most others not being much more than that. A disturbing portion, by the way, seemed to just be you and ZetaRediculan piling on some other member or caressing one another's thoughts.

Thanks for your valuable contributions.



Harken back to the "Logical Trickery" thread.

Plenty to read there. Might give you some insight into my current economy of words.

Can't speak for the past decades, but I've seen little "evolution" on your part over the past half decade.

Thank you for your valuable bloviations.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
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.



In science there is always theories until proof is established. There has been studies and even one that was able to reproduce the abduction experience in a lab. The people in the study swore they were abducted by aliens all the while sitting in a room flooded with em frequencies. This is a well studied phenomenon in the psychological departments of several universities.Here's a good paper to get started on. It's interesting to note that people that have not been exposed to the alien methos are never abducted by alienS. Strange apparently you have to know about aliens to be abducted by them. Wonder how they could possible know that. The interesting portion is we can reproduce the obductions in a lab and even the people involved know it's not real but swear there was aliens on the room.

books.google.com... HI7dDv0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c4FnVeXxCYm-sAW8uYHYAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=alien%20abduction%20reproduced%20in%20lab&f=false



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy in a way. You complain that "science" is not taking the topic seriously and when they do, you call them "deniers" when they disagree.


"When they do [take UFOs seriously]," you say? And WHEN was that? Hardly ever. Especially in the U.S. And actually, the few times science has taken the topic even a little bit seriously, it's been found that there's probably something to the phenomenon, something likely much more interesting than hoaxes and simple misidentifications. (Special Report 14, the Condon Report case analyses, etc.)


That in itself would cause any reasonable person to "scatter". So I don't think its the "alien reality" that's the issue.


So you think the disdain for UFOs that people like Shostack, Tyson, Shermer, etc. exhibit is a result of the attitudes of the present day pro-UFO crowd? I agree that the UFO 'community' can be its own worst enemy, but to say that science ignores the topic because of them is... well.. probably not consistent with reality. Because science's bias against UFOs has been present since the beginning. That's easy to show. So I think you may have the "cart before the horse", as they say.

And people have every right to be upset about mainstream science's failures here. We've all been let down by them. Any scientist whose opinion I'd care about would be familiar with the history of the topic, recognize science's failures there, and understand that the anger and frustration is 100% justified.




top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join