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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on May, 25 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
It sounds like you agree, the kids saw they object they claim as they were just a few meters away during the daytime?
Im not sure why the hesitation to claim it wasnt us unless you believe we had anti-grav, but thats another discussion.
Well some people think the first part of the sighting may have been a balloon. I don't know about that, but are balloons "anti-grav"?

Anyway they saw something, and I don't know what it was, and neither do they, which is why it's unidentified. Also I don't know if they actually got a few meters away.

If you read the original articles they all talk about people seeing something off in the distance. Then through sometimes unintentional confabulation and even sometimes intentional competitive tall-tale telling by people who didn't even really see anything, you can get a distorted picture of what really happened talking to witnesses 40 years after the fact. Your most accurate source of eyewitness observations will be those closest in time to the actual incident. No malice is required to distort the story. Just a few weeks after JAL1628 the captain was misremembering the sequence of events as documented by radar, but if you'd asked him right after it happened he would be more likely to recall the correct sequence of events. 40 years later the reliability is really not that good.

So going by what was published at the time of the incident, nothing about it strikes me as particularly alien, or even "anti-grav" as you put it. If you put a lot of faith into distortions four decades later, which I don't, you might develop a different opinion, but I'd suggest viewing 40 year old recollections as less than fresh. Most of us know someone who re-told a story about the big fish they caught and the fish seemed to get bigger every time they re-told the story, and what can happen in such cases is the person ends up recording their altered re-telling of the story and they end up believing it themselves, forgetting how big the original fish actually was.

Some of this is documented in the links I posted earlier, such as in the article "Your Memory is like the Telephone Game-Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it".


originally posted by: Willtell
Even though it may be your best friend, who you know is a truthful person, that tells you he was visited by an alien, the fact of the matter is that if you don’t have the experience yourself you still don’t KNOW the truth of it.
So far, so good.


What needs to be done is something called universal acceptance of it just as we universally KNOW the world is not flat. Or universally accept Russia is where they say it is on a map or any place.
If you mean accepting that people see things in the sky they don't understand, we've already accepted that. If you mean people describing encounters with aliens, this is not the conclusion which logically follows the above. We would also have to accept claims of angels, demons, elves, fairies, hobgoblins, chupacabra, bigfoot, and so on. For example, many icelanders believe in something like elves or hidden people:

Icelandic beliefs in elves

According to a 1975 survey by psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson, Icelanders’ level of belief in hidden people and fairies can be broken down into the following percentages:

Impossible, 10%
Unlikely, 18%
Possible, 33%
Probable, 15%
Certain, 7%
No opinion, 17%
You're free to believe in these elves or hidden people or whatever you want to call them and whatever else you like, but, put me down for "unlikely" along with most of the scientific community who need more evidence than personal experiences to be convinced of the existence of something. Your comment is getting into psychology.


Its about the superior perspective versus the inferior perspective. The superior perspective will always call the shots and in this case that isn’t us.
No, it's about separating claims which can be scientifically verified, from claims which cannot. Scientific assessment of claims of elves and alien abductions must consider psychological aspects of the claims.


edit on 25-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well said my friend, well said.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell





But we have to realize that science is evolving out of ignorance so it isn’t a panacea.

Science has become arrogant and in-fact, as I said, a veil to the truth of alien UFO visitation.


I agree wholeheartedly.
Mainstream science is all but irrelevant to the subject of UFOs, and that's being kind.

In fact, they've taken a very adversarial attitude towards UFOs, and are downright counter-productive.
Have you seen the disgraceful display of ignorance that Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts on in that video where he fields a UFO question?
It is so far removed from a scientific approach that it makes you question his credentials.

In a sense, I understand why they have adopted an illogical, unscientific, dismissive, mocking tone. It's because a more logical, scientific methodology will support the case for alien contact.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa
Did you read the article Jim Oberg wrote that he linked to on page 3 called The failure of the 'science' of UFOlogy ?

He wrote it 36 years ago, wondering what the state of science in ufology would be like in 30 years, hopeful there would be some improvement:


Where is the "ufology" movement likely to be after another 30 years? Perhaps new evidence will finally appear which can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps self-styled ufologists will establish truly scientific standards of evidence, will accept the burden of proof, will produce "falsifiable" theories, and will seek to formulate their science on positive rather than negative logic. Perhaps something significant will come out of this after all.

Many skeptical observers join ufologists in hoping so, because if any of the claims of ufology prove valid it would indeed rate as a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps one of the most important such events in human history...
It seems he was hopeful that science in ufology would improve in 30 years, but 36 years later we still have ufologists making extraordinary claims with little or no evidence to back them up. You know the type, right? Maybe if they took the lead in looking at the topic scientifically then Jim Oberg could be writing about how the advances in the science of ufology he hoped for materialized.

By the way if you're leading by example in taking a scientific approach to ufology, that hasn't been apparent to me. If you don't do it why would you expect anybody else to? You seem to think there's more to ufology than the average person realizes, so I'd expect you to be one of the first people to lead by example and be the change you want to see in the more rigorous application of science to the topic.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Of course its the same old clique that we are basing the nature of these thread like we know all there is to know about this universe and what it contains , that science as a whole has discovered all there is to discover. High folly and very premature to have the perceptions at present to say that no anomalies or unexplained phenomena contain no intelligence outwith the ordinary, that no intelligence by design or otherwise cannot or does not exist.Science at present does not know all there is to know about this universe and those that pretend that it does are the ones to avoid in my book.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did you read the article Jim Oberg wrote that he linked to on page 3 called The failure of the 'science' of UFOlogy ?

He wrote it 36 years ago, wondering what the state of science in ufology would be like in 30 years, hopeful there would be some improvement....


I read it a long time ago, and it's a very disingenuous article. Insulting in some ways....

Yeah sure, there Oberg is, 'hoping' that amateur UFOlogists will 'improve' and finally find some good evidence... all, of course, while he's snickering behind their backs about the impossible burden he knows they've been given, and smug in his knowledge that mainstream science managed to pull off the improbable: embarrassingly bungle and sidestep the real issue, while still getting the message out that UFOs are nonsense.

Oberg doesn't want UFOlogy to improve. He wants to keep nesting safely in his warm, comfortable cocoon. Just ask him if he finds any UFO case truly compelling and you'll see. Sadly, his opinions on the topic are full of holes and contradictions. Although, to be fair, they have been consistent over the years, so at least he's got that going for him....



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets


I read it a long time ago, and it's a very disingenuous article. Insulting in some ways....

Yeah sure, there Oberg is, 'hoping' that amateur UFOlogists will 'improve' and finally find some good evidence... all, of course, while he's snickering behind their backs about the impossible burden he knows they've been given, and smug in his knowledge that mainstream science managed to pull off the improbable: embarrassingly bungle and sidestep the real issue, while still getting the message out that UFOs are nonsense.

Oberg doesn't want UFOlogy to improve. He wants to keep nesting safely in his warm, comfortable cocoon. Just ask him if he finds any UFO case truly compelling and you'll see. Sadly, his opinions on the topic are full of holes and contradictions. Although, to be fair, they have been consistent over the years, so at least he's got that going for him....


Why do you look to others to blame? I see lots of people here willing to give the topic a fair treatment while others seem like they are looking to others to either validate their beliefs or blame them for not validating them. What do you consider "Main stream science"?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


40 years later the reliability is really not that good.
So going by what was published at the time of the incident, nothing about it strikes me as particularly alien, or even "anti-grav" as you put it. If you put a lot of faith into distortions four decades later, which I don't, you might develop a different opinion, but I'd suggest viewing 40 year old recollections as less than fresh


I will confess I cant relate to Victor's action, my self preservation gene doesnt allow me to entertain these thoughts. However, IF I were to throw caution to the wind and decide I was going to jump the fence to go touch this thing, where is the complexity in remembering that? Either I tried to go touch it or I didnt, either it took off from the ground or it didnt. As you suggest, he is straight up lieing or he isnt, however he isnt alone, and his particular vantage point allowed him to draw a detailed picture of its belly.




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You know what, you're right Zeta. I mean, why would any of us ever expect the real scientists to get involved, when part-time amateurs can so easily conduct the same kinds of analyses and cultivate the same level of mainstream publication and acceptance, thus lifting that gosh darn taboo once and for all. So we'll get right on that, pronto. (Starting after 5pm each day, of course.) Excellent question though.

Actually, you asked a second excellent question. You wondered what I consider to be "mainstream science". Very intriguing. "Mainstream science", after all, is such a vague phrase, having a meaning that changes direction as often as the wind. One day it'll mean something like credentialed, professionally funded scientists publishing their results in journals which are fairly and objectively critiqued by their peers, and then the next day... well golly, who knows what it'll mean by then.

Sarcasm aside, it's almost as if you TRY to derail threads. That's what you usually accomplish, by asking trivial, meaningless, or obvious questions. I picture a kid speeding down the yard on his Big Wheel, legs flailing, crashing into the adults' picnic area and shutting down all the grown up conversation.

Now, Zeta, do you HONESTLY expect amateur 'UFOlogists' to accomplish the same things that professional scientists would?
Do you imagine that they could?
And do you HONESTLY have doubts about what it is I mean when I use the phrase "mainstream science"?

I've fallen into your "game" by replying even this much, but... I couldn't resist! Sorry.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you mean accepting that people see things in the sky they don't understand, we've already accepted that. If you mean people describing encounters with aliens, this is not the conclusion which logically follows the above. We would also have to accept claims of angels, demons, elves, fairies, hobgoblins, chupacabra, bigfoot, and so on. For example, many icelanders believe in something like elves or hidden people....


Rubbish.

Find me a top secret intelligence memo on ELVES that reads like this:


"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the ELF phenomenon:
a) The elf was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the ELF."


Now replace Elf in the above memo with UFO, and you've got exactly what we have (through FOIA) regarding the 1976 Iran UFO incident(s). Written by an intelligence officer who met personally with several of the witnesses and Iranian higher ups, IIRC.

Are we really supposed to believe you over those people?

Maybe all of those witnesses, intelligence officers, government officials, etc., were all mistaken.... Maybe they just needed someone there like you, in the hours and days after the UFO event, to remind them how unreliable witness testimony is?

If you can find us something similar to that document which relates to "fairies, hobgoblins, chupacabra", etc., then you've got a valid point. Otherwise you're just one more person in denial, talking about something you have no first hand data on, apparently more than happy to mislead others.

And for the record, since so many people here get hung up on the ETH vs. EDH vs. Time Travellers, etc., and since that infighting unknowingly complicates so many discussions, I'd be thrilled if people just referred to true UFOs, for now, as "non-terrestrial technology", leaving the source / cause of that technology for a later date....



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

And do you HONESTLY have doubts about what it is I mean when I use the phrase "mainstream science"?


Yes, absolutely. And given your response, even more so. So what do you consider "Main stream science"? or should I expect another meaningless barrage of incoherent insults to cover up for the fact that you don't have a clue?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

I'd be thrilled if people just referred to true UFOs, for now, as "non-terrestrial technology",


So "true UFOs" are actually identified as "non-terrestrial technology"? That makes sense now



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
So "true UFOs" are actually identified as "non-terrestrial technology"? That makes sense now



Another excellent and thought-provoking contribution, Zeta!

You know darn well what it means: unidentified, with the usual 'true UFO' characteristics (as to appearance, performance, apparent intelligence, etc.), but without any implication as to the object's source... i.e., aliens from a different place, or aliens from a different time or dimension, or humans from a different time, and so on. Any of those, we're not sure which, BUT some apparent intelligence that's unknown to 21st century humans. It's simply a catch-all.

Clear enough?

It would avoid the whole "there's no proof it's aliens!" + "well what IS it then?!" mess that (much like you ;-) needlessly derails so many threads. But I'm almost positive the suggestion will go nowhere....



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
Now replace Elf in the above memo with UFO, and you've got exactly what we have
That is out of context.

You really must understand the importance of context. The post I replied to with my elves observation stated:

originally posted by: Willtell
It seems to me that this UFO contact phenomenon is getting more like the religious experience, and contact with an alien presence by an individual can be correlated to a spiritual experience in that it is essentially a personal experience

Even though it may be your best friend, who you know is a truthful person, that tells you he was visited by an alien, the fact of the matter is that if you don’t have the experience yourself you still don’t KNOW the truth of it.

What needs to be done is something called universal acceptance of it just as we universally KNOW the world is not flat.
So that post insisted we must accept alien contact. If it's actually occurring, I have no problem with that, in fact as Oberg said the discovery of alien contact will be a significant milestone for humans.

But you're talking about UFOs, which are unidentified flying objects. The existence of UFOs is well documented and not in question.

But, if you are saying that the unidentified objects have been identified as alien, what you cited does not support that. It only supports the existence of something unidentified. Do you see the difference between saying there are UFOs and saying there is alien contact?

It's the expectation we should accept alien contact I compared to accepting the existence of elves. I don't doubt the existence of UFOs at all and wasn't comparing those to elves and it is a big misunderstanding for you to suggest such an approach.

edit on 27-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets



Well said my friend, well said.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's the personal experience of alien contact I compared to belief in elves, not the existence of UFOs, which I don't doubt at all.


Right, you don't doubt that there are objects in the sky which are unidentified and are flying.

The real question is...
Do you doubt that there are objects, seen in the air or on the ground, which we can't identify and which very much appear to be the product of some unknown, non-human intelligence?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets


Another excellent and thought-provoking contribution, Zeta!

Thanks!


You know darn well what it means:

I know what "Unidentified" means and I know what "Identified" means but I don't always know how others define them. But thanks for your clarification of what you meant by "true UFOs". I was thinking it meant something that was truly unidentified as opposed to something that was just unidentified. That was my confusion. I actually wasn't expecting it to mean alien space ships which would make them "truly identified".


But I'm almost positive the suggestion will go nowhere....

Well, lets run it by main stream scientists



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets


...all, of course, while he's snickering behind their backs about the impossible burden he knows they've been given

What impossible burden is that? Requiring physical evidence from one the many physical on-Earth UFO/alien claims? That wouldn't be an unreasonable or irrational request. Request it if only a few cases are reported- Sure, that's unreasonable. With hundreds, thousands, or even millions by some claims. Sometimes happening multiple times to the same person- Not so much.

You mention in another thread, ground trace cases should be used to help convince the "ultra-skeptic" to take the subject seriously. So by that comment, you do believe physical evidence can be left behind. The only issue is the quality of that evidence.

You also mention the Delphos, Kansas UFO case and the refusal by the scientific community to publish Erol Faruk's paper, which shows the strong bias they have. And if the subject were taken seriously, maybe then the evidence would give us an alien source. What the article fails to mention is the fact that Erol Faruk, "non-UFO-connected" as you said, has been studying the case since the early 70's and this wasn't a chemist that stepped out of the blue and published a paper in 1987. It also fails to mention the other chemist in the article that did updated testing of the evidence, Phyllis Budinger, has run a small laboratory since 2000 dedicated to studying UFO trace cases. She's also a member of the Ohio chapter of MUFON. Clearly a biased opinion and something easily found online. Nevertheless, Budinger still mentions in her report:

The analysis neither proves nor rules out a UFO source of the release. The above natural products have many useful properties. Specifically, humates are known for their chelation/bonding to metal or organics. They are used in fertilizer and for removal of toxic metals and organic pollutants.

She further goes on to give an opinion clearly favoring an actual UFO encounter, even though the physical evidence tested can be attributed to a number of Earthly explanations.

I'm not claiming there's no scientific bias, but it goes both ways. If you read the article through a believers biased eyes and don't question anything in the article, you miss out on important details. Many UFO/alien cases are treated this way. They're taken at face value with little to no research.


Sadly, his opinions on the topic are full of holes and contradictions.

Who cares about his opinion, my opinion, your opinion, or anyone else's? What should matter is reading through an article that debunks a case that has a traceable path back to the actual source(s) of that debunking. How can anyone honestly looking for the truth of UFOs/aliens, besmirch that? Weeding through the BS cases should be welcomed, not met with emotional responses.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You know what, you're right Zeta. I mean, why would any of us ever expect the real scientists to get involved, when part-time amateurs can so easily conduct the same kinds of analyses and cultivate the same level of mainstream publication and acceptance, thus lifting that gosh darn taboo once and for all. So we'll get right on that, pronto. (Starting after 5pm each day, of course.) Excellent question though.

Actually, you asked a second excellent question. You wondered what I consider to be "mainstream science". Very intriguing. "Mainstream science", after all, is such a vague phrase, having a meaning that changes direction as often as the wind. One day it'll mean something like credentialed, professionally funded scientists publishing their results in journals which are fairly and objectively critiqued by their peers, and then the next day... well golly, who knows what it'll mean by then.

Sarcasm aside, it's almost as if you TRY to derail threads. That's what you usually accomplish, by asking trivial, meaningless, or obvious questions. I picture a kid speeding down the yard on his Big Wheel, legs flailing, crashing into the adults' picnic area and shutting down all the grown up conversation.

Now, Zeta, do you HONESTLY expect amateur 'UFOlogists' to accomplish the same things that professional scientists would?
Do you imagine that they could?
And do you HONESTLY have doubts about what it is I mean when I use the phrase "mainstream science"?

I've fallen into your "game" by replying even this much, but... I couldn't resist! Sorry.


I have noticed that Mr.Oberg has refused to answer most of the questions I have asked, and he refuses to acknowledge the salient points you make that clearly refute this thread's premise.
edit on 5/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   


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


Nothing. At the most it means there's a mystery attached, nothing more.




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join