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.
I would posit that the converse is often true.
Eyewitness testimony is vastly underrated I think.
Right. Aliens makes much more sense.
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.
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.
Like I said, if eyewitness testimony was that shaky, the U.S. justice system would be a laughable joke.
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.
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?
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.
Eyewitness testimony is the biggest source of evidence in Ufology,
originally posted by: fleabit
Ugh, I can't stand the stances of "believer" or "skeptic." What a lazy way to approach something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!