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: beetee
I think we need to be careful not to fall into a few traps when discussing, or otherwise engaging with, this whole subject matter.
The first trap to be avoided is to be imprecise with regards to the terminology we use. UFO simply means Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing
more. Thus, denying the existence of unidentified flying objects is silly, because everyone sees them every day. I, to pick a person at random, saw one object flying by today which I could not indentify. I think it was some sort of bug, but there simply was no time to make a proper identification. It could have been anything.
So when someone sees an object which defies identification, for example a giant flying triangle that makes no sound, it will be an UFO to most of us until someone steps forward and states (with incontrovertible evidence of course) that "we made it, and here it is" or "it was me, just watch me go" or similar. Claiming that one has seen an UFO is not in any way "fringe" but it has been made to appear that way by careless use or deliberate misuse of the term. The trick that is used is that the statement "I saw an UFO" is given meaning beyond that which the observer has perhaps claimed. For example it is assumed that the witness is claiming that he saw an extraterrestrial craft. Which, of course, the witness will be hard pressed to prove since the craft is -well unidentified - by his own admission.
The second trap I believe is to treat the whole mass of unidentified flying objects as a single phenomenon, which causes some very wide and unwieldy theories to be crafted to explain all these various observations. To me it seems very unlikely that all the various encounters with unidentified flying objects are expressions of the same phenomenon. It would be a little like trying to lump all "flying" objects on earth into one big family based on this criterion alone, and claiming it is the same creature/machine in all instances, which would result in a pretty novel piece of biology./engineering So unidentified flying objects could very well be both terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extradimensional, extratemporal as well as both technical and biological at the same time. It really is a bit pointless to try to kill my theory on the flying fish of the pacific ocean because you have some pictures of a Boeing 767 which you think show that it is clearly mechanical.
Hope this is not off topic. Just my two (insert currency here) ...
originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Gothmog
Stop over complicating. From the Germans, using horses to pull their guns (WW2 1940s) to putting a man on the moon was 20 odd years. That's 20 years not eons.
Also stop using Einstien, his explainations are theories only. They are NOT cast in stone. Ok, at the moment they are the best we have, but he might be completely wrong.
originally posted by: Gothmog
1) there is no "inter-dimensional " beings. The 11 dimensions are just to locate a point in the space/time of the multiverse. Everything exists at once in all 11.
2) I believed in aliens and the relation to UFOs . Up to a while back. I asked myself why would a race(or races) of super-mega-intellect want to cross a gazillion miles of space to visit this dust speck called Earth. There was absolutely no logical answer for that.
assumption that technology takes hundreds if not thousands of years from your cave man to man on the moon reference.