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.

 

A Guide to Modern UFOlogy

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ultimafule




I never inferred that all sides are equally incorrect. The skeptic is always right!


Actually, no.
Up to a point, yes. But we are years past that point. Skepticism in the face of a situation as dangerous as the alien presence is downright foolish.

Utter nonsense. Though, considering the source, that is (sadly) to be expected...

Skepticism in the face of a "situation" that has never been shown to exist outside of fantasy (and has, in many cases, been shown to have been falsified), is the only position an intelligent, rational person can take.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance





Skepticism in the face of a "situation" that has never been shown to exist outside of fantasy (and has, in many cases, been shown to have been falsified), is the only position an intelligent, rational person can take.


Utter nonsense.

Photographs, film, video, and radar recordings are not fantasies.

Nor are physical traces cases, some even involving radiation.

And you ask us to believe that pretending this evidence is fantasy would be the intelligent, rational position?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
And you ask us to believe that pretending this evidence is fantasy would be the intelligent, rational position?

I don't ask anyone to believe anything. What someone chooses to believe is their own personal decision. I'd simply like to point out that the 'evidence' that you and others claim exists, is no such thing. There are numerous anecdotes, some of which are quite interesting, but there is no evidence, or else we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Look, Scdfa....Though I vehemently disagree with it, I respect your opinion. We've both stated our cases numerous times, and it's clear that neither of us is going to change the mind of the other, so instead of the needless back-and-forth, how about this time we just agree to disagree?
edit on 9/9/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance




I'd simply like to point out that the 'evidence' that you and others claim exists, is no such thing. There are numerous anecdotes, some of which are quite interesting, but there is no evidence, or else we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


So radar recording of flying saucers do not exist?

And the people in the Cash Landrum case were not exposed to high amounts of radiation by a diamond shaped craft?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but anecdotes don't show up on film, radar or Geiger counters.

To deny there is evidence is to simply deny reality.

You are welcome to not respond to me, I will not be offended in the least.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
...
And the people in the Cash Landrum case were not exposed to high amounts of radiation by a diamond shaped craft?



Determining that supposition [NOT a 'fact'] would be aided by seeing their pre-encounter medical records for any treatments that might have similar effects -- but Schuessler refuses to let anyone see them.

This is a serious point since I remain fascinated by this case, as I was working witrh Schuessler on the shuttle program while he was privately investigating this. We knew each other then.
edit on 9-9-2015 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Skepticism is not the correct stance to have at all. If you are a skeptic, you are skeptical, meaning you already don't believe it, but are willing to investigate to validate your already preconceived opinion. Like all people skeptics don't like to bet proven wrong and will find whatever sources to discredit information that does not mimic what they want. Skeptics only convert when the information is so overwhelming that it makes their previous stance illogical/invalid, not because they desire it. They suffer the same fallacies that other stances have.skeptics are equally narrowminded



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg





Determining that supposition [NOT a 'fact'] would be aided by seeing their pre-encounter medical records for any treatments that might have similar effects -- but Schuessler refuses to let anyone see them.


How specious.
Yes, the young boy, and the two women just spent the weekend being exposed to massive amounts of heat and radiation together for what? Cancer? That none of them had?

And I suppose that those "medical" treatments somehow stripped all the paint off their car, too?

And it caused the military to dig up and repave overnight the road on which the incident occurred?

And you wonder why your debunking isn't taken seriously?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa
...
And the people in the Cash/ Landrum case were not exposed to high amounts of radiation by a diamond shaped craft?



Determining that supposition [NOT a 'fact'] would be aided by seeing their pre-encounter medical records for any treatments that might have similar effects -- but Schuessler refuses to let anyone see them.

This is a serious point since I remain fascinated by this case, as I was working witrh Schuessler on the shuttle program while he was privately investigating this. We knew each other then.


Funny you should bring this case up . I was just thinking about it.
From someone who is related ....



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa



I hate to be the one to break it to you, but anecdotes don't show up on film, radar or Geiger counters.

Actually, they do.
You know what an anecdote is, don't you?
You know what anecdotal evidence is, don't you?
Sure you do.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Being only a skeptic is always a good idea, but being a debunker is more of a: don't bother them with any facts, their mind has long since been made up.




You're totaly missing the point. Bunk is made up nonsense. To debunk is to expose that nonsense. It's based on fact!



I'm only using the word as it has been used on television, in films and documentaries and web sites. It is not commonly used like you say in the way it would, the way it is spelled oddly. So using it the way that is common, means using it ass backwards I guess, and its been going on that way for many decades.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed





I think he was paid or secretly a part of the air force's office of special investigations and was just going around acting like a know it all and using his prior air force pilot credentials to lend credibility to his disinformation or counter intelligence orders


Great post as always, no corruption allowed.

I'm curious, do you think anyone like that could post here?


Hi there Scdfa


I'm thankful for your comments as always,

And I do indeed see someone here who's comments are always trying to keep those who are very difficult to engage in the first place, with new or controversial information, from breaking free from those boundaries the main stream crowd is afraid to breach anyways, by making it dangerous to do so, so those ones end up like little clones of a sort, all doing the same thing, in opposition to the site's theme of being more prone to side with conspiracies, ending up being against them outright and without examination.

So you might say there are quite a few here living a lie, and think we don't see it!

I gotta sleep, it's way to late


Cheers to you!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa
...
And the people in the Cash Landrum case were not exposed to high amounts of radiation by a diamond shaped craft?



Determining that supposition [NOT a 'fact'] would be aided by seeing their pre-encounter medical records for any treatments that might have similar effects -- but Schuessler refuses to let anyone see them.

This is a serious point since I remain fascinated by this case, as I was working witrh Schuessler on the shuttle program while he was privately investigating this. We knew each other then.


It is a fact if that is what those two ladies say they saw. And thinking their medical records might show another radiation exposure is laughable. If this were true then their doctor would not have wondered what irradiated them and how much exposure did they get, he would already know from something else, but there never was a something else. I have seen a documentary and read about that doctors comments about all of this stuff before more than once.

And People who know them as two honest church going ladies say their words can be trusted. A diamond shape is Not difficult to describe seeing, I mean it is just a simple diamond shape. Even children only 4 years old or so know what a diamond is shaped like, and when they see that shape will always correctly say "Diamond"
So claiming it isn't a fact, if that is what they swear they saw, is just ranting for attention. Isn't it Jim.. Come on really Jim, 2 ladies see a diamond shape object and they get burnt by it thinking it's the second coming, go to the hospital the next day and Doc exclaims :RADIATION EXPOSED the two women and the boy. What else happened if this didn't happen?

Pretty cut and dry and using just simple "see spot run" logic leads to only one possible conclusion. They saw a diamond thing, it burned them, they were radiation poisoned or exposed, and they saw 20 something Chinook twin rotor craft that only the military used then, but the military men (Air force) that interviewed them claimed the Chinooks weren't theirs. How stupid is that now. They asked how the ladies knew the helos were military. Wow just Wow.

Those things were not owned by civilians then, no civilian owned any until 2014 where 2 were sold to Billings Montana for fighting fires. The two ladies saw a large fleet.. Those guys that showed up and destroyed those two women with the abuse and the humiliation types of treatment should have been shot like rabid dogs, don't you think? It is hard to imagine for most good folks that the Air Force has garbage like that on their payroll to do specifically what those men did to those two badly injured ladies, isn't it Jim..

I'm positive that you wouldn't ever consider treating two ladies with that kind of disrespect after having been burned with seriously harmful radioactive materials, and not even offer them a ride to their hospital like those two Air Force Heroes did. And I further bet you would believe them if they told you these things themselves, just because I don't think you are that kind of guy who could harm women by making them out to be liars or idiots publicly the way they were back in 1980.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



It is a fact if that is what those two ladies say they saw.

I disagree. I will, however, agree that they saw something.

Do you think eyewitness reports are 100% reliable?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I only have one question for the OP, in which category do you stand?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa


I have a hard time believing that people would work that hard at denying alien contact as a hobby.


Hard to find official proof, but the signs are there..

1 – CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

2 – DEMANDING IMPOSSIBLE PROOF

3 – DOMINATE THE THREAD

4 – PRE-WRITTEN SCRIPTED RESPONSES (cut & paste comments)

5 – FALSE ASSOCIATION

6 – FALSE MODERATION

7 – STRAW MAN and “AD HOMINEM” ARGUMENTS

8 – POSING LEADING QUESTIONS and “PLAYING NICE”

I could add more, but you get the picture.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Well, they seem to like to control the industry. I wrote/emailed the top Exopolitics head in Canada and shared our families sitings and direct experiences, wanting hypnosis for me and the kids. And a good list. He shared he had simliar and even the areas these happened in where known, but he discouraged me from even doing the regressions, hinting that some things a person doesn't want to know.

I found that suspicious and very interesting.

We have to do it grass roots, all the organizations are black operations IMO.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I generally try to be an honest skeptic, but I will sometimes go the route of the debunker because it saves so much time, and the result is pretty much always the same -- no proof of anything.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19793589]Blue Shift[/post

Proof first requires the aptitude to find and look at it and evaluate and process it, and many just don't have the aptitude to understand the ET questions in their heads, or they don't want to understand it because their friends don't, and they wish to keep their friends. And this doesn't mean they aren't smart people otherwise, it is a matter of choice.

Even looking for proof, even if/when it exists here already isn't exactly a safe venture either as we all know. Some will trip all over the map just trying to come up with the best insults to those who put a single foot forward, on the path that looks like it could lead them to proof or very good evidence that is hard to ignore..

Even mentioning how stars produce heavier elements from Hydrogen on down to elements that wont synthesize here inside our own star because it isn't large/dense enough to get past Uranium will get a couple resident Amoebae minds all mad and pointing the finger and claiming nobody knows, the trouble they have seen. They don't like others to be privy to science they haven't heard about yet, and because of that, claim no one else could possible know if they don't.

People, as in each person born, from what I have seen, have talents and gifts and ways about them that are mixed for all.

One person can be a wizard naturally at Bass Guitar and can see spirits and see and hear things that others can't. The one who can't see spirits, might have a gift like understanding and comprehending Flying Saucers, and know for a fact they aren't man made, but their spouse might laugh at them as a mental idiot for entertaining the reality, of something she can't fathom in the slightest, so goes forth with the firm idea or fact in her mind that her husband has no intelligence.

And I'm just freelancing here, none of these examples have anything to do with me, or anyone in particular..

And my question is, are the people who know things others do not know, lacking truth in the knowledge they have and understand, just because someone else doesn't get it? Or because it isn't scientifically proven? In my view and experience, the answer is No.

Anyone can possess one or many specialties in the way they perceive certain things, granting them something that someone else might not ever know.. Maybe people/genetics just have qualities that endow them with things that others will just keep pissing on forever, because they, and sometimes a large majority don't mesh with a conceptual idea or something that they have actually witnessed before.

Just some thoughts Blue, Just some thoughts..






posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
You completely missed the largest component of modern UFOlogy.

The Hoaxer.

Brought to you by You Tube.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



It is a fact if that is what those two ladies say they saw.

I disagree. I will, however, agree that they saw something.

Do you think eyewitness reports are 100% reliable?


Not always, no, but many times they are very close to 100%. It depends on what they saw, what they know, how they know it, and how qualified they are to say and describe something, including their ability to describe things they saw that they didn't understand will affect reliability..Each report by an eyewitness needs to be carefully evaluated and researched, and sometimes that means going on a discovery mission to verify that eyewitness like the big guys do. Stanton Friedman is very good at that, and if an eyewitness is reliable enough to accept what he says as facts, based on level of expertise, or if expertise is even needed to describe what they saw will be a factor too..

What Cash and Landrum described, experienced, and saw, even though it was beyond their experience, could still accurately describe something they saw, because of having more than one in agreement with what was seen heard felt, and hurt by, that today, no body still has full understanding of, or an explanation for, Except maybe some of the CH-47 pilots, or others not in evidence, but with the secret of that evening, remaining a secret still..

I had a very close friend name of Jay Olsen who has passed away a few years ago, who was a Captain in the Air force when he retired at 55 or so, then he switched over to civilian and was invited to join the FAA which he remained there and was chief ATC for Los Angeles Intl, and then Phoenix, and finally Tucson Intl. And if ever there was a 100% reliable witness, if 100% is even possible, and it probably is NOT..He would be that witness, and he did see several real to life flying saucers which all landed on the tarmac, one right at the end of a runway during heavy air traffic, and they have to just ignore them when this happens and just wait for them to leave, while diverting traffic, and not saying a word about it to anyone, until much later, and he told me about them. Was that "100%" the gimmick you were trying to lay down like a caltrop for me?

The "reliable" thing can be measured and qualified by what is already known as true or factual, and what is not known or understood, but can still be easily described when witnessed by any average person not known by anyone as a fraud or joker, and any number of other qualifying elements that add to the strength of reliability, should be considered when vetting a witness... I made this all up , but it sure does sound like it would work to me.. Does it work for you too? That was fun talking to you Phage, please enjoy your evening.. I'm off to sleep..



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join