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.

 

The End of UFOlogy?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


Eyewitness testimony is vastly underrated I think.
I would posit that the converse is often true.



That is not critical thinking, that is a pure skeptical view of "We can't come up with another theory, so we'll go with Jupiter." It doesn't even make sense.
Right. Aliens makes much more sense.


Like I said, if eyewitness testimony was that shaky, the U.S. justice system would be a laughable joke.
You might want to review the facts about how many people been convicted based solely on eyewitness testimony. You might then want to see if any of those were later exonerated when actual evidence came to light.


Do you believe that YOU would be fooled into thinking a flight of planes, at an altitude so high you literally cannot hear their engines, is within hundreds of feet of you instead?
I'm not sure that you have the facts right in your description, but I do have an anecdote, which I have posted a few times.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Eyewitness testimony is the biggest source of evidence in Ufology,
And that's the problem. It seems that when some say, "I know what I saw", the fact is that they saw something that they don't know what it was. No more, no less.


edit on 9/25/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Ugh, I can't stand the stances of "believer" or "skeptic." What a lazy way to approach something.


What? You either put forth a stance as a believer or a skeptic. Those are the two boxers in the ring and only one will emerge victorious. A believer doesn't need evidence, by being a believer it is unnecessary. A skeptic says "What do you have, can you prove it?"


Instead of approaching something with a bias that it is probably more true than not, or more likely to not be true than is true, how about the novel idea of approaching each sighting with no bias whatsoever? Base it on the facts and evidence on hand.


No, if you mean skeptics approaching something with a bias, that's an untrue blanket statement that applies to people such as Phil Klass, but not always, and arch-skeptic Robert Sheaffer who definitely has a bias against anything UFO. I approach claims with an open mind and let the details guide me. Every time I debunked something I succeeded because the claim was without merit.


The big issue I have with skeptics is that most approach a sighting with the preconceived notion that it is more likely a hoax, mistaken identification, or something else before seeing any of the facts. When you approach something with that mindset, you are already biased against a fair evaluation of the evidence. And the same could be said for those who more apt to believe it is something non-terrestrial before evaluating all the facts.


Of course some skeptics have a bias but not ALL skeptics have a bias. And those skeptics that start out with a bias are either gonna be wrong and be embarrassed or in their stupidity still gonna come out smelling like roses because the claim was weak.


It's ironic, because many years ago when I came here, as a believer in phenomena that I felt was not of this planet, I thought I'd be on board with all the posts about sightings and encounters. I was very wrong, as I found I was actually dismissing a much greater number of reported sightings than not. The majority in fact. But that was because I tried to approach every sighting from an unbiased viewpoint.


Your problem was/is that you are "...a believer in phenomena that I felt was not of this planet, ..." If you are satisfied that you are a good (read: clear) thinker you ought to disabuse yourself from being a believer and become an accepter AFTER you have irrefutable proof. You have no idea where phenomena emanates from, no one does. You have to develop mental neutrality. You say " I tried to approach every sighting from an unbiased viewpoint." No you didn't, you stated that you are a believer, that's biased. For!


Even after that, I still firmly believe there is a ludicrous preponderance of evidence that something not of this world is visiting. So I can only chuckle when I hear something along the lines that there has been nothing substantial for decades. There has been a mountain of evidence in the last 30 years. Just because aliens have not landed on the White House or Kremlin lawns doesn't mean there is not plenty of evidence.


Why don't you treat us to a source where we can see your " ... ludicrous preponderance of evidence ..."? If you can't, don't claim so because your claim is challengeable, as I'm doing. A mountain of evidence, plenty of evidence? Show us.


If court cases followed the mindset of people following Ufology, the vast majority of cases would favor the defense. Like, 90% or more. But that does not happen. Why? Common sense, and a preponderance of evidence. Which Ufology has a ridiculous amount of.


Empty, unsubstantiated words and your 90% is just a fantasy 'cause you don't know what the 100% consists of.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The truth is, all of those who are interested in the ET hypothesis - which is intelligent, sentient beings similar to us are coming here now, in person from distant Earth-like planets, and flying around in the atmosphere in craft, landing and interacting in secrecy - know this is just a TV/Movie type 'Extraterrestrials' wishful thinking.

They're not coming here, they're not like on TV (IOW, they'd be too strange to contemplate if they were not of our DNA) and they've got no reason to hide (if they were coming here) and they are not going to 'save us' (or eat us).

It's a lens of wishful thinking, the desire for explanations and desire for 'wonder' and the 'supernatural' to be real.

We all have known it for at least the last 10 years but just hang on because it's no fun to be skeptical.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

Facts are pretty hard to come by. Eyewitness accounts are what they are, unreliable. Photographs are what they are, pictures of something in the sky, and often hoaxed, clearly so.

In the end, not many facts. Just a variety of anecdotes about a variety of phenomena. Not facts, not evidence.


Eyewitness testimony is vastly underrated I think. You can't just consider what people said they saw, you have to consider what other people have -not- seen. Example - Phoenix lights. The popular skeptic theory being that people saw a flight of military planes for many hours, from differing perspectives and light conditions. How many other flights of planes have there been in the last 40 years or so? How many were mistaken for a UFO for hours?
snip
Eyewitness testimony is the biggest source of evidence in Ufology, and I think skeptics give it a tiny margin (if even that) of the level of importance it should be receiving. Eyewitness testimony IS evidence. It always has been in a court of law, and it is in Ufology as well.


You have hoisted yourself on your own petard. We have had, and still are, conversations about the Phoenix flares and your beliefs about them being something else seen by residents of Phoenix is flat out wrong and if you went to court with your beliefs and I produced the two videos that show what really happened your case would be tossed out. Flares!

edit on 9/25/2019 by Hunkadinka because: To correct format.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Specimen88
Well, if we had any idea what those ufos are actually are or from, would it be called known?


Some of us know, but it is not common knowledge among the unwashed masses because the truth is SO SCARY (hiding under the bed monster like) and boomerangs/undermines all false notions of religion, archaeology, and world power structures (just to name a few) you docile slave you.


empty claims

Tell me more about your "see no evil hear no evil speak no evil" perspective and what shapes it.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
The truth is, all of those who are interested in the ET hypothesis - which is intelligent, sentient beings similar to us are coming here now, in person from distant Earth-like planets, and flying around in the atmosphere in craft, landing and interacting in secrecy - know this is just a TV/Movie type 'Extraterrestrials' wishful thinking.

They're not coming here, they're not like on TV (IOW, they'd be too strange to contemplate if they were not of our DNA) and they've got no reason to hide (if they were coming here) and they are not going to 'save us' (or eat us).

It's a lens of wishful thinking, the desire for explanations and desire for 'wonder' and the 'supernatural' to be real.

We all have known it for at least the last 10 years but just hang on because it's no fun to be skeptical.


I like what you say but your last sentence. I don't know what you mean that we all have known for at least 10 years, so please explain, I'm curious. It IS fun to be skeptical but it is not a permanent mindset, it's always in the background and kicks in only when it's necessary. You don't have to take on every claim because when they're ridiculous you have to laugh and ignore them.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   

You have hoisted yourself on your own petard. We have had, and still are, conversations about the Phoenix flares and your beliefs about them being something else seen by residents of Phoenix is flat out wrong and if you went to court with your beliefs and I produced the two videos that show what really happened your case would be tossed out. Flares!


For a supposed expert debunker, are you really that uneducated on this sighting? Of course the lights seen in a V pattern for the first and last time ever, in sight of Phoenix, hours after hundreds of reports of a V shaped craft was reported, were flares. That's sort of the point of the contention. Why were they dropped - military training? You are superbly naive if you believe that. It's laughable that people buy into that excuse. It's obvious those flares were dropped prior to a possible actual craft flying over Phoenix, to provide a handy alibi.

But of course.. they were a formation of planes! That fooled hundreds. For hours. And obviously this sort of sighting has never been reported again because there are no longer formations of planes flying across the U.S.? Naw.. I don't think so. And I don't think for a moment that planes would be deployed to drop flares as a distraction, if it were a mere flight of military planes in the sky. Why would they do that?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join