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.


How much proof do we need before we believe?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:00 AM

While no "proof", I believe there is more than enough "evidence" out there for any logical person to "believe". "Proof" would of course negate the reason for "believing", as it'd then be a fact. And that fact is only going to come out when and if either the government discloses what it knows and has, or when the aliens do. Anything shy of that, and there will still be reason to "doubt" the phenomenon.

Wonderfully said Gazrok, for me anyway.

Belief sets are individual things, and the standard of belief requirement seems to differ by individual. Sure, some people require the same data to believe, while others require a different level.

It's quite an interesting dynamic to observe.

I feel it is inherrent in human nature to wonder and imagine, particularly when staring out at the vastness of space. That all too familiar question inevitably arises......

One can only wonder what personally perceived 'realities' can be manifested via nothing more than thought and imagination.

Just my 2 cents

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:34 PM
If we don't believe what the government says now, (for good reason),why would we believe what the government says later.
If they will lie about this subject now......oh, that sort of logic is beyond me.

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:54 PM
According to statistics in the Disclosure Project, only 50% of the American Population believe ET's exist. How many more believe, but are afraid to admit it? The stigma attached to believing in extraterrestrials has got to dissipate before political pressure can be applied by a popular consensus. Until then, half of us are still looked at as crackpots.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok

but very little is personnel and is obvious that a great deal if not all of it is gained from internet reasearch.Is there anything wrong with that? well yes as it can not be proved or validated.

True, it's sourced to internet sources, but still validated. For example I validated the LA incident in microfiche at the library, and even an e-mail to the LA Times archives office. In Roswell, I have a copy of the actual paper, so that's easy enough to verify, and the affidavits are corraborated by numerous books and UFOlogists, even though on a website. For the DC incident, I personally checked and validated facts again, such as the Marshall statement, etc. (released through FOIA and available to any).

This "validation" is exactly what I strive for in such posts, and the internet is simply one of the easiest tools available. Such content found though, on such research posts, is corraborated through other sources as well, listed as often as I could throughout the articles, and certainly available for anyone to verify such info through whatever means they wish..

Very impressive, not really whilst reasearch of this kind is usefull it is a pointless tool to use when the subject you are researching may be covered up by the govt or may never have excisted in the first place.Public records and archives are there for the public to view the chances of even the most intelligent armchair expert finding any creditable thread of doubt is so miniscuial it is almost a waste of time particularly in the case of Roswell as so many thousands of people have already looked into every document that excists in the public domain.Verifying public documents is a fruitless task you can only verify them if you have knowledge beyond that of public information.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:57 PM
But do we really want to know?

Just for discussion's sake:

In our history, nearly every time a technologically advanced group has come into contact with societies not as far along, the less advanced folks haven't fared so put it mildly.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in