It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Harte
It is an extremely common ploy by true believers to attack strawmen when they can't logically connect their claims to reality. You see this all the time. A skeptic chimes in and then a believer will reply with some hogwash asserting the skeptic doesn't believe that extraterrestrial life is possible.
originally posted by: Klassified
I find it interesting that we're so divided as a species on this type of thing. Some of us look to the stars, and have no problem believing life could have developed, risen, thrived, and went extinct many times before we came along....
Others NEED us to be the only life that has ever existed in the universe.
ESA's Hipparcos was the first space mission dedicated to measuring the positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars - for astrometry, as the experts call it.
Launched in August 1989 by an Ariane-4 rocket, Hipparcos was a pioneering space experiment dedicated to the precise measurement of the positions, parallaxes and proper motions of the stars.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
Definition of Evidence:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A blurry photo is not evidence.
A video of lights in the sky is not evidence.
Even if we accept that there are craft flying in the skies which we cannot identify (and I think most sane people would agree that there are), there is far more reason to believe that these are man made....
There are facts supporting this too, such a witness statements and evidence relating to the development of such craft during WW2.
... We also know that the US and Russia both gained a lot of scientific benefit from the collapse of the Third Reich.... We also know that the US brought back more than 1000 Nazi scientists and engineers.... If we are to form opinions based on all available information and what we know, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is any alien involvement here, and a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest these craft are man made.
TextI absolutely agree. However, I also believe that one should refrain from jumping to the most far-flung, improbable conclusion (ie. extraterrestrials) without absolute proof of such. That is where I disagree with many of the posters here.
originally posted by: KuzKuz
IMO the true aliens are to smart to be wasting their time on insignificant beings like us. Along with they got the tech to scramble your vids or cams from miles away. And on the statistics mentioned before me they'd maybe do a drive by and go "oh my lord, look what they've done to this planet. It's a pity and a waste. Let's go to the next stop
What is a "true UFO"? You seem to get some of the problem with attempting to identify something that is "Unidentified" but do you have another level of unidentified? Truly Unidentified? And we can assign probabilities to unknown things based on what we know about.
That reasoning is circular. You see it all the time when discussing UFOs. ("What's more likely, an airplane or aliens from another planet?!?!") Well, we don't know. We can't assign probabilities, because we're not sure how common true UFOs are.
originally posted by: yourignoranceisbliss
a reply to: neoholographic
ATS isn't friendly to UFO discussion anymore. Hasn't been for quite some time. It is, however, a great place to study the disinformation campaign though.
Accepting this, you will find it best to move that type of discussion elsewhere.
originally posted by: timequake
But what makes it "far-flung" and "improbable"?