It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


TED Talk: Why I Believe in UFOs, And You Should, too

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 07:02 PM

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: [post=23021304]whywhyno]


Of course it doesn't work. Why would my first thread work?

I'm sorry y'all. But I very much appreciate project posting it.

Thank you, I thought I had done it well, I will have to check on what I did wrong. But, it seemed like there was no way to check it until after I posted it. And, at least at first, it looked ok.

Dunno, but thanks for letting me know ....nicely.

ATS allows you something like 4 hours to edit your post after you submit your thread or reply.

edit on 1/7/2018 by Lathroper because: Unsuccessful format correction

posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 07:18 PM

originally posted by: Pathaka
a reply to: Scrubdog

It is TEDx, not TED.
Don't worry, the TED censors will probably take it down if it gets too popular, just like they did with Rupert Sheldrake's video (and censored Russell Targ).

On a semantic note, only a complete moron doesn't believe in UFO.s

UFO still stands for Unidentified Flying Object.

Is somebody really claiming that everything that flies out there, at all times, is identified.

Thoughtless insults take away from any credence you're trying to establish. You don't know about belief systems. UFOs are NOT to be believed, they are to be accepted or not. UFOs are not part of a belief system. You either have a reliable sighting or you hear of sightings by others. The UFO witness doesn't believe in UFOs, he knows they're real. I was never a believer in UFOs but I was certainly curious about what people were witnessing. Then I had my first superb sighting and it was acceptance after that. Beliefs weaken you mentally.

posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:53 PM
a reply to: Lathroper

Good point.

This is why interviews with those such as yourself and other first hand accounts are so powerful.

"We got a coverup among the researchers themselves that people are relying on for the truth" ~ Joe Jordan

The greatest deception is really only that these beings are physical biological entities born on other planets outside of the solar system, because that is the big cover-up in place to keep the public from knowing that underground demons are in cahoots with the elite and have probably hijacked many of them, using them to prepare the way of the Antichrist and the take over of their King Appollyon or Satan of the entire Earth, and for the subjection of you the Earthlings.

We can further the demons agenda by spreading more of these semi-physical “reptilians,grays” etc. instead of calling a spade a spade that they are noting more than ordinary and despicable demon angels who didn’t keep their first estate. Like Greer and his people are such cover up artists that are in charge of the “disclosure project” making it all look like the Elite is in cahoots with Alien extra terrestrials, instead of the Elite is in cahoots or even taken over by DEMONS!

That is the main point of this article. Don’t be a voice for ET disinformation. If you expose them expose them for what they REALLY are! DEMONS on Anti-Gravitational Space vehicles that most likely can get around the solar system wherever there is some form of substantial gravity to ride on.

The Cattle & Human Mutilation Cover Up

"We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth." - Brad Steiger

originally posted by: The GUT
...the hypothesis that best fits the UFO phenomenon is, imo, that those little stinking, lying buggers ARE demons.

"I'm not saying that there's no such thing as aliens that would be foolish of me. But what I am saying is that it was my experience that these were people claiming to be aliens.

"They are not coming from outer space... they are coming from below our feet. They live beneath the surface in an UNDERWORLD or hollow honeycombed earth... and beneath the ocean's surface. They do not inhabit the surface of earth, but visit often... and that's when we see them... throughout ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY."


posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:41 AM

originally posted by: Maverick7
Why I believe in lights in the sky and daytime discs?

What a maroon.

People! There are no non-terrestrials in real time, coming here, and there never will be. For all intents, we are alone in our local area of the Universe. Cherish your time here.

Can you prove what you claim?

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:45 PM
Very few TED talks present actual science, and this one belongs in the non-science majority. The TEDx concept appeals to many people because it's often good entertainment combined with some useful or thought-provoking information. There is also the 'intellectual elitist' stink on TEDx, and that adds to the feel-good experience of viewing them.

Like many of the talks, here we have a guy with no scientific training, speaking on scientific matters; most of his "facts" are not facts at all. They are included due to simple ignorance, or they're purposefully sprinkled into the story to lend credibility to the main point and help generate the kind of buzz that sells books and increases attendance at movie houses. I tend to think it's the latter. He's a novelist and screenwriter, not a scientist.

A pretty good way to tell when a TED talk may contain actual useful information is by observing audience members when the camera pans to show crowd reaction. In the vast majority of the presentations, it's to the show attendees' reactions--and how YOU should be reacting at home; not much of a departure from the use of 'laugh track' in TV sitcoms.

In a few of the talks, audience members are taking notes. These are the ones that really matter if you're interested in actual science.

But if you're in it for pure entertainment, most TEDx presentations will entertain you.

I'm an electronics guy. One of the big problems in signal-carrying circuits is noise. Noise comes from many sources; external EMI and RF, e.g., video displays and lighting, internally-generated (inherent in the circuit) EMI and RF, component vibration, shot noise, and other causes. Noise pollutes and degrades the signal, and the signal is the important thing. The signal is the true information, and the noise devalues it. You've heard the term 'signal to noise ratio' (S/N ratio). The higher the S/N ratio, the better the signal quality. Electronics manufacturers often include S/N ratio numbers in their marketing wank to show how their widget is better than their competition's.

It's the same in real life: there is signal (truthful facts) and there is noise, which everything else that gets mixed in with truthful facts, either intentionally or unintentionally. Sorting the pepper from the fly poo is a full-time job for a person that wants to think for themselves. It takes work.

It's a whole lot easier to be spoon-fed your own opinion while you down an entire pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Which is sadly a too-common thing these days. Social media makes it a turn-key process. See the tag line below for more info

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:59 PM
Are there objects or crafts flying around in our skies that are unidentifiable to the common person?
Of course! No one could dispute that.

Are they intergalactic space travelers from thousands of light years away?
That's laughable and easily the farthest possible stretch of an answer.

Occam's Razor.

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:12 PM

originally posted by: Lathroper
I am skeptical of alleged claims of anything connected with extra-terrestrials and abductions.

Sure. Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said basically that he didn't believe in UFOs because he has seen too many of them? Of course there are things flying around in the sky and zooming underwater that are unidentified, at least by that particular witness. So we're left with a choice. We can either choose to believe that all UFOs could be identified as something mundane if we just had a better sighting with better data, or that there is some kind of unknown thing happening that is putting odd stuff into our reality that we haven't been able to figure out.

Unfortunately, the first part of that choice makes a person super lazy. The second part requires having to bend and twist semantics in an effort to come up with words to describe the unknown. I don't necessarily want to be the skeptic who needs to have proof presented to him in a way that already fits in with standard physics or described in a way that makes perfect semantic and logical sense. But I would like it.

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:21 PM

originally posted by: jjkenobi
That's laughable and easily the farthest possible stretch of an answer.
Occam's Razor.

Yeah, but you know Occam's Razor is double-sided. While it suggests that the most simple explanation is probably correct when dealing with unknowns, it also allows for the fact that every once in a while the right explanation is way out there. And that's one of those deals where if the thing remains unknown, then the probabilities shift and the chance of the answer being "weird" is practically (albeit not statistically) equal.

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 05:36 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Lathroper
I am skeptical of alleged claims of anything connected with extra-terrestrials and abductions.

Sure. Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said basically that he didn't believe in UFOs because he has seen too many of them?

Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World: S01 E010 - UFOs - 26:21
At 14:15-17:23 the film of a claimed UFO filmed at Catalina Island that upon computer enhancement was revealed to be a Piper Cub-type airplane. Arthur ends that segment by saying, after a short explanation: "For this reason, I'm no longer interested in UFO sightings". He couldn't foretell the arrival of digital cameras with high definition.

Here is what I found connected with the above on ATS by a member calling him/herself "The Shrike":
Arthur C. Clarke's Irrational Reason For Ceasing His Interest In UFO Sightings
The Shrike
Registered: 10/18/2009
2,411 379
1,582 18 11

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:05 PM
It baffles the mind that anyone could lose interest in UFOs. More so when an individual such as famed science fiction author, inventor, and futurist Arthur C. Clarke. In 1980 he stated that he was no longer interested in UFO sightings. What could this brilliant man have experienced to result in this unusual POV? Would you believe he simply saw the results of computer enhancement of frames from a film taken in 1966 of a then-believed-to-be UFO resulting in said UFO being simply a Piper Cub-type aircraft? And because the plane was at such a great distance from the camera that the resulting small image is too blurry to show the plane's aeronautical details. Since 1966 this film has been shown as proof of a UFO and people swear by it as they swear that the Phoenix "lights" are also a giant UFO, etc.

Even though the computer enhancement took place in 1980 or before and the results broadcast internationally, this film is still being touted as real. Evidence doesn't always win out.

If one of us would have been able to interview Clarke after his pronouncement and asked him "Well, what about all of the other higher-quality films (pre-video) and photographs that can be enhanced and not result in mundane explanations, would you 'believe' again?" Whatever level of acceptance Clarke had for the reality of UFOs it had to be extremely low for him to be disuaded on such flimsy evidence.

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 11:02 PM

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Scrubdog
The video below contains nothing Earth shattering or even new to any reader here. Yet, I believe it is very useful and quite good for showing your "skeptic" friends, because it's done by a skeptic who dropped his skepticism while researching for a book. Something I can very much relate to as it is what brought me here and how I came to know as much as I do.

Not interested in "TED Talks" but I'm reacting to your sentence "a skeptic who dropped his skepticism ..." No such person! I'm a skeptic. Born one, still one and I'll die one.

Skeptic: a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

You have skeptics and you have believers. A skeptic is driven by a necessity for irrefutable evidence of alleged claims. When such is provided, the skeptic moves on to the next claim. Irrefutable evidence doesn't cancel skepticism, it reinforces it. I'm a skeptic but not of UFOs as I've had more than my share of sightings.

I am skeptical of alleged claims of anything connected with extra-terrestrials and abductions.

Read my signature.

True, that is the definition of a skeptic.

But, we're talking UFOs now and in that world, I think you know what I meant.

It is imprecise language

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 11:16 PM

originally posted by: Elementalist
This video is garbage is more of a reason why no one takes this phenomena seriously anymore.

Most of what the speaker says is outright lies, unfactual, no true proof to his empty words.

It's just a guy talking. He even opens by basically stating his career as a writer was a fail. I can only imagine the desperate steps he has taken to convince himself he is somehow "in the know".

Imho this video is bad substance for the ufo world, kind of like Tom Delong, Steven Greer, ancient aliens and all the other #e out there pretending to be in the know and offer nothing true or real to the conversation but light entertainment.

Why is this thread flagged and starred So much. The TED talk was a joke.

And I've been a believer since I was a child.

Perhaps it's bagged and stared b/c people aren't as cool as you?

I have been watching and reading as much UFO material as I can for over 6 years. I can't stand Steven Greer, I can't stand Tom Delonge, I can't stand Linda Mouton Howe, Wilcox ...

I thought the guy gave a good 15 minute talk.

Like it? Don't like it? Whatever.

Doesn't bother me.

But I enjoy the TEDx series immensely, bc I don't pretend to know a subject through and through after one, I just know there is a subject there worth study. It's for the intellectually curious as the broadest intro.

And in that respect, the guy did a nice job.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in