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 U.F.O. skeptics are in denial

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob808
Sigh... typical idiot. I’m not trying to make specific claims, THATS YOU. I don’t have to counter your claim with a fleshed our theory I can simply prove yours is flawed. You cant continue defending it as the best scientific conclusion, as again anecdotal evidence only supports faith in an idea, not a reality, and that’s the best believers have. And what do they do, THEORIZE making endless guesses of reptilians or soul eating beings, annunaki hollow earth... endless theories with endless origins for the “ufos”. Your PERSONAL belief isn’t the best scientific conclusion, it’s just yours.

. I proved my point fully yet you can only focus on yours which is entirely disproven as you moved the goal post. Im not asserting aliens aren’t possible. Ive clearly refuted your claim it’s the best conclusion to draw using scientific reason like you claimed. I have no issue stating it’s possible, it’s also possible we are living in a matrix and it’s it’s just computer code, but with the current evidence it’s NOT the MOST LOGiCAL conclusion to draw.

Take the L it’s ok you have faith still in the little green men, they might even take you up for a good ol probing if you’re well behaved.

reply to: FishBait



ATS is a hoot. "I don't have to prove anything just yell your wrong over and over..." Nobody can prove what all of these objects are so how can you prove what they aren't? I never said its the best but if we don't know what they are and they are decades ahead of known tech what are they? I'll I've ever said is it's a legitimate option to suggest they are alien. Wow that really triggers you. I think you might be one of those Russian trolls just trying to rile people up with out actually saying anything.




posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: midnightstar

Speaking of pyramids... How do you move thousands of 50 to 100 ton stones 500 yards to the top of the other 50 to 100 ton stones you set perfectly in place and etched into perfect squares?

A thousand years of practice?


I don't know, man. I don't think it matters how long you practice. When you're trying to perfectly etch, and perfectly place stones then I can see your point. But when we're talking about stones this big and this heavy, practice isn't going to cut it, no pun intended. One mess up could cost you a multi-ton stone.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 12:11 PM
link   
ADDITIONAL SMACK DOWN by leslie Kean to the idiot nonsense of several skeptics on this forum











twitter.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: midnightstar

Speaking of pyramids... How do you move thousands of 50 to 100 ton stones 500 yards to the top of the other 50 to 100 ton stones you set perfectly in place and etched into perfect squares?

A thousand years of practice?


I don't know, man. I don't think it matters how long you practice. When you're trying to perfectly etch, and perfectly place stones then I can see your point. But when we're talking about stones this big and this heavy, practice isn't going to cut it, no pun intended. One mess up could cost you a multi-ton stone.

And that happened too. Fortunately, there was no shortage of rocks.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

labtech767, thanks for the thoughtful comment, well worth following up on, probably best in another thread. watch the skies!



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Dr. Kaku was right. The burden of proof has shifted from those who say U.F.O.'s exist to those who say they don't.

It's really not the skeptic, it's the pseudoskeptic. It's okay to question and debate evidence but just blind rejection of common sense arguments isn't right.

Would you mind quoting some of these "pseudoskeptics" who say UFOs don't exist?

I mean, that's the entire point of your thread - that these pseudoskeptics are in denial because they say UFOs don't exist.

It's somewhat suspicious that you don't provide a reference to the thing you're railing against here.

Harte



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Would you mind quoting some of these "pseudoskeptics" who say UFOs don't exist?

Here's one right here.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ufoorbhunter



By experiencing a full on UFO then the individual becomes a believer
Until then you will always be that sceptic due to the way yu were educated / brainwashed from birth


A believer in what though?


"Thermodynamic miracles" (Watchmen)?


Dr. Robert Jahn at Princeton University has studied another aspect of this non-locality of consciousness as it pertains to mechanical systems. The reader should study the results of these experiments which demonstrate that mind and thought, directed for example at a random number generator, can affect the outcome of the device. This can be accomplished because there is a nexus or link between awareness and matter: the warp and woof of matter is woven in with consciousness and in fact is simply mind-stuff expressed at a different frequency. Thus, an individual can affect his body, another person’s health through prayer and visualization or even mechanical systems via thought and consciousness.

THE CROSSING POINT
by Steven M. Greer, M.D.



Random Event Generator (REG)

The REG experiment at PEAR typically used trials which were the sum of 200 bits drawn from the sequence at a rate of one trial per second. The bit generation rate was several thousand bits per second, so the experiment could explore the effect of larger trials (for instance 2000 bits) as well as other physical parameters including the rate of bit or trial generation. The original REG device had switches to set such parameters to allow exploration. Later generations of the experiment used simpler, miniaturized random sources, with software to control the conditions which the PEAR program assessed.

Over many years, the REG experiment accumulated substantial evidence for an effect of human intention using a tri-polar protocol where operators (PEAR’s preferred name for subjects) succeeded overall in achieving high trial values under that instruction, low numbers when so instructed, and no significant deviation from expectation for baseline trials. In the original ‘benchmark’ REG experiment, the difference between high and low conditions in 2.5 million trials over 12 years of efforts by 91 operators is small but highly significant with a Z-score of 3.99 (~ 4 sigma) and a corresponding probability of 7 x 10-5 or odds of about 15000 to 1 against chance as an explanation. Various parameters, such as the speed of data generation, the size of the trials, random vs volitional choice of intention, pairs of operators vs individuals were examined. Most had small effects, but of special interest was the effect size for bonded pairs – their scoring levels were significantly higher than for either of the individuals.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

Totally slept upon on ATS if I'm not mistaken. Kinda funny tho, innit?




posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Would you mind quoting some of these "pseudoskeptics" who say UFOs don't exist?



originally posted by: Majic
Here's one right here.
So that's what someone who doesn't believe in UFOs looks like, I was wondering. Yes, I'll bet he doesn't even believe in UFOs.

But most humans do as explained by hawkguy


originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

We all "believe" in UFOs. You'd be an idiot not to.

Do I believe there's unidentified objects that are flying around? Someone might have identified them but to me they're unidentified.

Absolutely I believe in them! And they will remain unidentified untill someone tells me what they are.

But just because I don't know what they are doesn't mean I'm willing to jump to conclusions
So, I think the question is, are you willing to jump to conclusions and say it's ET because you can't identify it and don't understand its performance?

This one had to be ET, right? Over 30 witnesses saw it and it's beyond human scale/technology. Well yes over 30 witnesses saw it and what they described is beyond human scale and technology at the present, but I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion it's alien:


On the evening of December 11, 1996, more than 30 people in several different locations in Canada's sparsely-populated Yukon Territories reported seeing a huge "UFO mothership" with rows of lights, flying by as a Close Encounter of the First Kind. (Note that he quotes for the source ATS and the excellent presentation made here back in August 2008 by member "jkrog08")


UFO "Mothership" sighted from the Klondike Highway, Yukon Territory, Dec. 11, 1996.

The documentary film Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings lists this "multiple witness sighting in the Yukon" as number eight of the top ten UFO cases of all time. In that film the celebrated "Flying Saucer Physicist" Stanton Friedman says of this case:

"The Yukon case IS emblematic of what a good case should be. I mean, sure, we'd like to have a piece of the craft, we'd like to have the crewmember introduced for dinner. BUT multiple independent witnesses lasting a long time, describing something that's WAY outside the norm, -- there's no way you can make it into a 747, for example [chuckle]. And big, but this was much much bigger than a 747. "



originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

Totally slept upon on ATS if I'm not mistaken. Kinda funny tho, innit?

According to this article, they sought replication, from other universities, which failed, and they even had problems replicating it themselves:

The PEAR Proposition: Fact or Fallacy?



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Long journey to go, but I don't think that ride ends here. Nor did it start there. You'll have to admit that there is some data to gaze at. Totally unexpected, if you will.



Aaanyhow. I don't think a problem "replicating themselves" (not 'that' problem!) would be so much of an issue when it comes to believe-systems. This is an interesting field that even I'd like to see explored further. Magick, innit?



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

There is some data. More often than not it points to the "mundane."

But the ET hypothesis thrives on a lack of it rather than the presence of any.

edit on 7/30/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

somebody or something are piloting these things being seen everywhere. Our visitors are not only highly advanced they are obviously smart.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

It's human nature to "connect dots" even when there may not be a connection. UFO reports vary so much that assigning them to any one source is a good example.

People see things that they don't recognize. That's really about as far as one can take the "evidence" of eyewitness reports.


edit on 7/30/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True. And even the "mundane" seems to get less "mundane" with each passing day.

I like the way you coined it; ET-hypothesis, not even bothering to question the UFO phenomena as such.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




I like the way you coined it; ET-hypothesis, not even bothering to question the UFO phenomena as such.

What's to question? People see things that they don't know what it is. That's what unidentified means.

In the vast majority of cases more data can provide identification and people really do not make good witnesses when confronted with an unusual situation. This is fact.

In a minority of cases there is not enough information to make an identification. "Unidentified" does not mean "unidentifiable." But it is those cases upon which the ET hypothesis thrives.

Sure, it could be ET. But probably not.
edit on 7/30/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
....
This one had to be ET, right? Over 30 witnesses saw it and it's beyond human scale/technology. Well yes over 30 witnesses saw it and what they described is beyond human scale and technology at the present, but I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion it's alien:


On the evening of December 11, 1996, more than 30 people in several different locations in Canada's sparsely-populated Yukon Territories reported seeing a huge "UFO mothership" with rows of lights, flying by as a Close Encounter of the First Kind. (Note that he quotes for the source ATS and the excellent presentation made here back in August 2008 by member "jkrog08")


UFO "Mothership" sighted from the Klondike Highway, Yukon Territory, Dec. 11, 1996.

The documentary film Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings lists this "multiple witness sighting in the Yukon" as number eight of the top ten UFO cases of all time. In that film the celebrated "Flying Saucer Physicist" Stanton Friedman says of this case:

"The Yukon case IS emblematic of what a good case should be. I mean, sure, we'd like to have a piece of the craft, we'd like to have the crewmember introduced for dinner. BUT multiple independent witnesses lasting a long time, describing something that's WAY outside the norm, -- there's no way you can make it into a 747, for example [chuckle]. And big, but this was much much bigger than a 747. "


...


Classic case. World 'ufology' =TOTALLY= fuc4ed up. Undeniable coincidence with fireball swarm from identifiable satellite reentry nails it as a misperception.

badufos.blogspot.com...

VERY common witness misperception of 'prosaic' satellite reentries
s:
www.jamesoberg.com...

This is your =BEST= evidence?
edit on 30-7-2020 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




In a small majority of cases there is not enough information to do so. "Unidentified" does not mean "unidentifiable." But it is those cases upon which the ET hypothesis thrives.


More to the point, it's the same power myths thrive upon. And we certainly witnessed a lot of that as well, especially when it come to anything but UFOs.

“Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”
― Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments

Let's just say I'm having a hunch the ET-threat angle is being pushed on us for certain reasons.

What's your impression regarding the general development of "disclosure" with TTSA and all that?



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I've been hearing "disclosure coming soon" for a couple of decades. At least.

TTSA got what it wanted. Publicity, and as a result, a series on the "History" Channel.

BFD.



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
....

This one had to be ET, right?
...
This is your =BEST= evidence?
The video that featured that UFO was indeed called "Best Evidence!"

Click the link that says "This one had to be ET, right?", the click the link to Sheaffer's blog, then in Sheaffer's blog, click the link at the end of this sentence:


The documentary film Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings lists this "multiple witness sighting in the Yukon" as number eight of the top ten UFO cases of all time.

It will take you to the video on youtube called "Best Evidence"! If there was any better evidence, wouldn't it have been shown in a video named "Best Evidence?" I think so, thus it must be the best evidence, right? Or at least it was before you contacted your friend Ted Molczan and asked him to look into it, leading to the idea that maybe it wasn't an alien mothership after all.

Would it surprise you to know that some people read Sheaffer's blog, and then STILL think it's the best evidence, because they think what those 30+ people say is more credible than the scientific facts from Molczan? (or whatever their personal reasons are?) I have really run across people like that here on ATS, one of them said he was skeptical of Sheaffer's blog because Sheaffer seemed just a little too gleeful about the UFO case being "BUSTED!". Maybe Sheaffer did seem a little gleeful in his blog post, plus I find that some people still refuse to believe that so many people can be so mistaken, which has been one of the points of debate in this thread.

So yes, here's the "BEST EVIDENCE" Video that was posted to youtube in 2011, before Molczan shared his findings, about 15 months before Sheaffer's blog post "Busted!" was made.

Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings - 1996 Yukon case (#8)



The #8 case from the documentary Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings - the 1996 multiple witness sighting in the Yukon.

For more information, see: www.ufobc.ca...



posted on Jul, 31 2020 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is your point?

Your posts have no relevency to this thread. Nobody on this thread has said misidentifications don't happen. You keep posting cases where misidentifications happened like someone in this thread said misidentifications don't happen. That's just a straw man argument. You're debating against something that nobody said was the case.

I showed cases with reliable witnesses where there isn't any evidence of a misidentification and you just ignored that post for obvious reasons.

You're the one that took the illogical position that all Pilots are unreliable. You can't even admit that there are reliable witnesses LOL. This is how far you have to go into the black hole of ignorance to try and deny the accumulation of evidence.

I will as the question you have dodged 8 times now.

Which one of these statements accurately describes all observers or eyewitnesses?

A. The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

or

B. The objective truth is some people aren't reliable observers while some people are very reliable observers.

It's obvious why you don't want to answer the question.

If you answer A, you realize how illogical it sounds but you want to support your pseudoskeptic brother Arbitrageur.

If you answer B, then you have to admit that some U.F.O. accounts from Pilots are reliable.

You're the one that said:

The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.

This isn't objective truth. There's some people who are very reliable eyewitnesses.

The fact that you're acting like there's no reliable eyewitnesses is just asinine.

Also, show me the post you're debating. Where did anyone on this thread claim that misidentifications don't happen. If you can't show me this you're just debating against a point that was never made on this thread and this is because you have no argument. Show me the post that you're debating.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join