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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Deleted as pointless
edit on 21-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: pointless




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj

This is not the response I expected, in any way. Either clarify or say nothing.


Check out the concept of 'onus probandi'.

Yes, I know the meaning. You insult me.
Thanks but no thanks.
I notice everything I said was ignored to the detriment of those interested, whereas everything of your own interest was brought to light.

I truly thought better of you.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
To quote a comedian:
"The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

And as such what is the point?
edit on 21-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: bold

edit on 21-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj

This is not the response I expected, in any way. Either clarify or say nothing.


Check out the concept of 'onus probandi'.

Yes, I know the meaning. You insult me.
Thanks but no thanks.
I notice everything I said was ignored to the detriment of those interested, whereas everything of your own interest was brought to light.

I truly thought better of you.


If I meant to insult you, your display screen would still be smoking.

More likely I didn't pay enough attention to your earlier reply.

Let me look them over and get back to you, please.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

As with many things unfortunately, it depends. Some are going to find certain cases more compelling than others.

Looking over this thread of best cases, I decided to check out the Trent/McMinnville. Whatever that object was, it isnt enough for me. Others obviously disagree by putting it in their best cases list.

If you dont find any of the unsolved cases compelling, it proves nothing of course. If they were all like McMinnville case, I would feel the same.

As discussed in other threads, I believe the following case involves technology we werent capable of at the time.

Westall 66 (start in at 9:47, picture at 11:00). Several students observe a small drone like craft levitate up. Did we have anti-grav in 66 ? Victor Zakruzny stood right in front of it in broad daylight as it lifted off. The others were a few meters away, I just dont see any other explanation. If I am wrong, and honestly I would prefer to be, oh well, I need to reexamine where I went wrong.


Other compelling cases
Ravenna police chase
Madagascar green ufo, double siting
Belgium ufo wave



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj

This is not the response I expected, in any way. Either clarify or say nothing.


Check out the concept of 'onus probandi'.

Yes, I know the meaning. You insult me.
Thanks but no thanks.
I notice everything I said was ignored to the detriment of those interested, whereas everything of your own interest was brought to light.

I truly thought better of you.


If I meant to insult you, your display screen would still be smoking.

More likely I didn't pay enough attention to your earlier reply.

Let me look them over and get back to you, please.


I will accept apologies neither for your lack of comprehension nor vision in this case.

Once again, I expected better, you do however maintain your incredibly high level of absurd self righteousness, Hala Cesar
edit on 21-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: grammar



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Well you could try an approach not based on the idea "I know it all already" an approach that has its' roots wholly founded in a particular ethnocentric view of the world. One that is based on the wholly out dated philosophy of the "Clockwork Universe" and how people should all genuflect to those with no specific knowledge yet a few letters after their name even when, those letters bare zero relevance to the subject in hand.

It's the utter blindness to people such as you Jim , to your own cognitive dissonance. You rail like a wounded hippo when someone strays onto what you perceive as your territory and then, in the next breath, start holding court with your cod psychology 101 when the science disagrees with your world view.

You have it both ways and still have the temerity to pull others up for doing exactly what you do. Radar experts are only Radar experts when they agree with you, scientists are only "proper scientists", when they agree with you.

Have you and your fellow talking heads ever sat down and considered the fact that. Actually, I'm just a typical middle class white of European extraction, with all the cognitive bias that is the sum of generations of propaganda and social programming? That you are as much the keeper of the tradition of telling virtually all indigenous people's they are ignorant and need saving from themselves? The tradition that has ridden roughshod over what probably was key knowledge based on the arrogance of, don't believe in that mythology, believe the one we give you?

Quantum uncertainty in effect tells us, anything can happen and probably will, not for any sentient reason rather, that the universe can, so it will. Jim, you and your ilk actually do "believe you know", in other words philosophically, you inhabit a closed loop and simply cannot accept anything can exist outside that loop, no matter what evidence might be presented. You and your ilk, have "faith in you science" in other words, you blindly accept the tenets of your own belief system as much as any religious fundamentalists do and anything which contradicts has to be struck down as blasphemy. Just like those religious zealots you cannot see this and even when it is pointed out, you will no doubt try to construct some rebuttal based wholly in semantics rather than logic.

.There are some cases where the evidence as it currently stands, strongly suggests that there is non human intelligence involved. What's more there has been for several decades, a quite deliberate and concerted attempt to discourage anyone from the scientific community from either exploring these cases or, talk about them to anyone, should they do so. To deny either of these is to deny the reality of the situation. You talk about truth and scientific method and yet, there's no actual scientific proof as yet that, our whole creation is anything other than solipsist in its' nature. it's a tad rich to pontificate about scientific fact when you can't even scientifically prove this whole thread is not merely an internal dialogue one of us has created. If you actually stand back and consider that, it shows just how little we really do know about our own condition and yet, we are happy to pontificate and expound on any number of issues which are still very much, the subject of debate.

Just maybe, the day we as a race cast off both the dogma of faith and belief be it in science or religion, we might just begin to unravel some of the true mysteries of our universe. The one thing I would ever claim to know is that, humans have a capacity for infinite subtlety and that is reflected in the universe(s) we inhabit. As it stand, science is every bit as guilty as religion at trying to ignore every crinkle, every fold that casts doubt on their respective dogmas. In many sense it's the tyranny of the average as often, those whose knowledge is verging on the esoteric be it in theology or science will freely admit to; "In the final analysis, not having a clue what it's all about rather they have learned to, simply delight in the journey".

To propose that we should study "weird stuff" simply because experience tells us that, no matter how much we deny it carries on happening, does not denigrate science, it merely highlights how as yet, scientific methodology is still not up to speed. There's absolutely nothing wrong admitting that simple truth.

As has been said before. Why on earth would you ask a rocket scientist how a UFO works when if they knew, they wouldn't be wasting their time building rockets would they?
edit on 21-5-2015 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
And just one more thing. I was invited by your good self Mr Oberg to this very thread, so to say that you paid little attention to my reply is just plain rude.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: game over man....
I think this just points out your biased approach to investigating UFO's and Alien visitation.


Duh!! Of COURSE it's biased. As ALL approaches to revolutionary interpretations should be.

What did you expect, a level playing field?


What does revolutionary interpretations supposed to mean? Did you mean evolutionary?

So in the midst of interpreting a UFO sighting or reported alien encounter, the discovery of what would be a revolution, you should be biased in your investigation of this? Biased is being unfairly against something. That means you dismiss UFO's because you refuse to believe in them.

Like you commented earlier, "if they were gone a year, would we even notice." In your mind, they've never been here.

I've bet you have seen a UFO, or if not know someone you've trusted that has told you they've seen a UFO. Now granted you don't believe in what you saw, and I ask you. Why do you not think interstellar travel is possible? Why do you think it's not possible for our timelines to match? Why do you not think life could have been seeded by aliens?
edit on 22-5-2015 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
"I believe that the hardest language to speak for some, is the truth"
-Unknown

Mr. Oberg would like us to work on our vocabulary skills, and familiarize ourselves with Latin phrases.
Mr. Oberg would like us to be aware that if he chose to insult us, our display screens would still be smoking.
Mr. Oberg abandons his penchant for Latin phrases, and defends his bias with the eloquent "Duh!! Of COURSE it's biased."
Mr. Oberg :


if the terminology stretches anyone's vocabulary [you know who you are], consider it an opportunity to increase your word power.


Mr. Oberg is right.
Pardon me while I get out my O.E.D. and look up 'duh'...
Ah!

"Full Definition of DUH

1
—used to express actual or feigned ignorance or stupidity"

I wonder which way he used it, actual, or feigned.

Anyway, Thank you Tea and Crumpets, you're like me, only smart. You conclusively and effectively established the premise of this thready was faulty to begin with, the inference being drawn really stood in stark opposition to the truth.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

what ever you want it to


but bear in mind - that " unsolved " really does not mean much - it certainly does not mean " unsolvable " and the absence of a solution does not open the door to " its aliens "

a case in point [ for unsolved vs unsolvable ] is fermats ` last theorem ` - assuming fermat didnt actualy have a proof for his own theorem - it was unsolved untill 1995

some people said [ at varrious times ] that it was unsolvable - but hey the proof [ wiles 2nd attempt ] was accepted and found to be robust



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
but bear in mind - that " unsolved " really does not mean much - it certainly does not mean " unsolvable " and the absence of a solution does not open the door to " its aliens "
It doesn't have to be aliens. There are at least two possibilities.



Some people say there might be more than two possibilities, but they are the ones who get accused of not being open-minded. Kind of ironic, don't you think?


originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Westall 66 (start in at 9:47, picture at 11:00). Several students observe a small drone like craft levitate up. Did we have anti-grav in 66 ? Victor Zakruzny stood right in front of it in broad daylight as it lifted off. The others were a few meters away, I just dont see any other explanation. If I am wrong, and honestly I would prefer to be, oh well, I need to reexamine where I went wrong.
That thread is an example of what I'm talking about. The author of the thread says there are two possibilities and only two possibilities.

I say to be open-minded means being able to conceive of more than two possibilities, but to some people being open-minded means you have to conclude it's aliens or some kind of alien tech we aren't supposed to have. Seems like the idea of what it means to have an open mind is not well-understood.


originally posted by: FireMoon
To propose that we should study "weird stuff" simply because experience tells us that, no matter how much we deny it carries on happening, does not denigrate science, it merely highlights how as yet, scientific methodology is still not up to speed.
The scientific method is probably as up to speed as it's going to get, but it will never be well suited to one time non-repeatable occurrences. After all the basis of science is that observations can be repeated and verified.

Scientific knowledge is always growing. For example, ball lightning was not scientifically confirmed until a few years ago. I suspect other phenomena besides ball lightning not yet understood by science are yet to be discovered, and I think some of the as yet undiscovered phenomena may account for some unexplained sightings. Ball lightning, probably didn't account for many unexplained sightings, but it was still an interesting discovery and could be involved in some cases.

edit on 22-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim, if you're trying to discredit the small percentage of UFO cases that are too good to be debunked by the typical methods, I just have to say "no". I know you NEED there to be no aliens, but this logic of yours is simply inadequate and a bit desperate. You want all the exceptionally credible sightings to be regarded as not real, but "garble" in the human experience??? You're not convincing anyone with that.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


I say to be open-minded means being able to conceive of more than two possibilities, but to some people being open-minded means you have to conclude it's aliens or some kind of alien tech we aren't supposed to have. Seems like the idea of what it means to have an open mind is not well-understood.


Indeed.

One can think aliens are a possibility, but to conclude because no other explanation seems to fit is questionable.

Conversely though, to dismiss aliens or alien tech outright just because there are other more palatable terrestrial possibilities isn't particularly open minded either. Saying "I can't explain it, but it isn't aliens" doesn't really fit the definition of open mindedness as well. It's certainly reasonable to "lean" a certain way, but I personally think it's perfectly acceptable to think outside the box.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

You want all the exceptionally credible sightings to be regarded as not real, but "garble" in the human experience??? You're not convincing anyone with that.

Lets just say that the exceptionally credible sightings are indistinguishable from the garble in the human experience.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JimOberg



Jim, if you're trying to discredit the small percentage of UFO cases that are too good to be debunked by the typical methods, I just have to say "no". I know you NEED there to be no aliens, but this logic of yours is simply inadequate and a bit desperate. You want all the exceptionally credible sightings to be regarded as not real, but "garble" in the human experience??? You're not convincing anyone with that.


What you 'know' about my thoughts simply isn't so, you just dreamed it up, so you gotta ask yourself why you have to invent a fictitious 'straw man' to excuse your avoidance of grappling with a fundamental feature of UFO evidence.

I can prove nothing, not do I want to prove anything, about hypotheses such as ETI [or generic non-human intelligences] presence locally. If you've ever seen me say or write differently, please point it out so i can correct the way I'm expressing it.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JimOberg



Jim, if you're trying to discredit the small percentage of UFO cases that are too good to be debunked by the typical methods, I just have to say "no". I know you NEED there to be no aliens, but this logic of yours is simply inadequate and a bit desperate. You want all the exceptionally credible sightings to be regarded as not real, but "garble" in the human experience??? You're not convincing anyone with that.


Do you see the unconscious assumption in your wording? You assume that a case that has no explanation is that way because it is 'too good'. But by defining 'good' as 'lacking in explanation', you have created a closed circular definition, what we in Houston used to call a 'self-eating watermelon' -- something that proves a conclusion by assuming it's true from the start.

There are many ways, non-extraordinary ways, that a story cannot be explained. We've all encountered some like that which much later, with dumb luck, turned out to NOT be unexplainable. How many examples do you want?

And please don't roll out that old 'we-only-have-to-be-right-ONCE' canard, give me a break.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
.....
I've bet you have seen a UFO, or if not know someone you've trusted that has told you they've seen a UFO. Now granted you don't believe in what you saw, and I ask you. Why do you not think interstellar travel is possible? Why do you think it's not possible for our timelines to match? Why do you not think life could have been seeded by aliens?


Man, you're talking to some imaginary caricature out in the dark who you think is walking around with my name. All of your guesses about what i ought to think are imaginary -- have you actually ever read any of my more thoughtful essays on the subject, like the international essay contest winner back in 1979?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Lets just say that the exceptionally credible sightings are indistinguishable from the garble in the human experience.


You could say it... but the data shows that you'd be incorrect. So once again (but more briefly)... see Project Blue Book Special Report 14, where, over 60 years ago, Battelle (working under contract for the USAF) showed that Unknowns do present enough information to be 'solvable', but they are distinguishable from Knowns in important ways. (Size, speed, etc.) Fundamentally different.

Again...
1) Before a group of scientists would label a sighting Unknown, several of them needed to rule out natural and man-made phenomena.
2) Each sighting was ultimately classified as Known, or Unknown... or they found there was INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION available to determine which. Meaning the Unknowns are not merely "garble", like you contend. They are positively identified as "unknown"... something many can't or don't want to comprehend.
3) The Battelle scientists found that it was "less than 1 percent" probable that the sightings labeled Unknown were merely misidentified or not-yet-identified Knowns.

Conclusions:
The skeptics' typical claim that all Unknowns are just temporarily unknown, i.e., labeled with that placeholder until we can get more sighting information, was shown to be untenable. Incorrect. WRONG. The Special Report 14 data says so. There was enough information available to solve those cases, but the objects sighted were basically just too weird.

UFO skeptics have had 60 years to comprehend and rebut this data. They haven't.
edit on 22-5-2015 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg
The key word here is 'anomalous' because it is a relative term; I trust that there ARE answers to unexplained things and if those answers were found such events would no longer be anomalous. So, these events are anomalous only with relevance to our ignorance.

But it seems that even in a universe where there are no anomalous events there is a fuzzy edge concerning perception. There is plenty of room for misinterpretation. So, my answer is no, all reports are not necessarily explained because the report could pertain to many different candidate phenomena and there could be confusion as to which phenomena obtains. If there ARE fairies and pixies and their existence is proven it is still possible to confuse a fairy with a pixie!!!




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join