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.

 

Skeptics say none of it is real

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   


Good plan, ubermunche. But if you don’t have any evidence, all you can do is conjecture. And while conjecture may be a fun thing to do while you’re sitting around the fire in the study or in front of your computer, it’s not going to give you any answers. You know that. So why not come up with evidence?


I'll readily admit to no "proof", but evidence? The evidence is all over the place. There is plenty. We've shown plenty of it right here on this site. And oddly enough, far more evidence supporting aliens than the God that brings so much meaning to your life.


Interesting then, that UFOlogy gets the ridicule, while another unproven belief with far less evidence is treated seriously.
But, we've gone down that road in another very long thread....




posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Excellent points one and all! I find it interesting that some skeptics are in fact scientists who disregard the alien/UFO matter as a hoax or an illusion when in fact not all abductions/sightings/crop circles can be explained. You would think for a intelligent scientist they would at least give a better explanation then what they have already given. I have yet to see a scientist agree with those who do believe. Have you?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Oh but they have. Problem is, they contradict themselves. For example, in Roswell they said they had captured a flying disc, press report right from the base commander (Blanchard).


That's true. The government made a mistake of announcing it was a captured disc. The other problem is even though the government brought forth all this information over 40 years ago, they wanted to dismiss it all with a Weather Balloon (Rosswell), a hoax (Blue Book). I have yet to see the government take the matter seriously as a lot of citizens now are demanding.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Gazrok says:

"I'll readily admit to no "proof", but evidence? The evidence is all over the place. There is plenty."

Do you call fuzzy photographs "evidence"?

"And oddly enough, far more evidence supporting aliens than the God that brings so much meaning to your life."

I don't know if it's "far more"; certainly a similar amount. Belief in a diety, like belief in Spaceship Guys, is really a kind of religion. It can't be proven -- or at least it hasn't been, yet. And as far as "evidence' -- The flying saucer photographs I've seen are pretty much like the "miracle" of the Blessed Virgen's face on a tortilla. It just doesn't resonate with me.

"Interesting then, that UFOlogy gets the ridicule, while another unproven belief with far less evidence is treated seriously. But, we've gone down that road in another very long thread..."

So the God Squad has better PR than the Spaceship Guys....



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
1. That all alien abductions are hoaxes or illusions?
2. All UFO sighting are hoaxes, illusions or something that can be explained?
3. All witnesses who have come forward: Civilian, Military and Government are lying or crazy? (Hmmm... That's ALOT of people)


Well IMO, applying Occum's Razor, as others have, I would say that with all the sightings throughout history, the simplest explaination is that there is something going on. It may not be exactly extraterrestrial craft, but again IMO, extraterrestrials is the simplest explaination.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
mr mulder says:

"Excellent points one and all! I find it interesting that some skeptics are in fact scientists who disregard the alien/UFO matter as a hoax or an illusion when in fact not all abductions/sightings/crop circles can be explained."

I think most scientists would say that most of the "evidence" is hoaxes, or just misteaken identity. I am more than happy to say that there are some phenomena for which I have no sure explanation.

What does that make them, then?

Simple. Phenomena for which I have no sure explanation. It doesn't make them Spaceship Guys.

Almost all of these phenomena can be explained, and the scientists who explain the hoaxes and mistaken identity show that. If you think you can explain inexplicable things by saying they're Spaceship Guys, then you should be able to show why you think so and why we should think so.

Saying that "You can't explain this, therefore it's Spaceship Guys" certainly isn't going to cut it.

"You would think for a intelligent scientist they would at least give a better explanation then what they have already given."

I think you should understand a couple of things about scientists.

First, they don't pretend to have all the answers; they look at science as a never-ending quest for better understanding of the universe. If they already knew all the answers, they'd be in a different line of work.

Second, a scientist has to be honest or he'll get dinged by his own colleagues. That's why they can't explain everything and won't try to (usually). I've always believed that if any person says he has all the final answers, he's a liar and a fraud. If you press a true scientist about a particular unexplained phenomenon, he will say something like "I don't know; I don't have enough data."

There are simply too many scientists out there to allow one to try to BS his way to fame and fortune. If his assertions are not provable, the other scientists will call him on it; that's one of the reasons why scientists tend to published in peer-reviewed journals, and why phonies like Tom Bearden and others don't.

"I have yet to see a scientist agree with those who do believe. Have you?"

No.

And, come to think of it, I have yet to see a parent honestly agree with those who believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. What does that tell you, Mrmulder?

Scientists tend not to believe in things for which they don't see good evidence.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
hal9000 says:

"Well IMO, applying Occum's Razor, as others have, I would say that with all the sightings throughout history, the simplest explaination is that there is something going on. It may not be exactly extraterrestrial craft, but again IMO, extraterrestrials is the simplest explaination."

Okay.

Let's look at Occam's Razor to help us with, say, sightings, okay?

Phenomenon: A bright light moving through the sky.

Off_the_Street says:

We know that there are satellites; it could be one of them catching the Sun from below the Earth's horizon, or

It could be a meteorite, or

It could be a fixed star whicvh looks like it's moving abgainst the backdrop of moving and broken clouds, or

It could be any one of those things, because we have seen all of those thing many, many times before.


HAL9000 says:

It could be Spaceship Guys.

Of course, in order for it to be shaceship Guys, we have to accept that there is intellignet life in our neighborhood, and

That intelligent life would have to reach the starfaring stage right about now, and

It has to be pretty close to us (astronomically speaking) for it to visit us, and

It has to have picked us out of the billions of other stars in the galactic neighborhood, and

It has to find us so interesting that they keep coming back over and over and over again, and

They don't want anyone to see them except for people who don't ever have any way of recording these visits, and

They have shown no logical reason for doing any of the things that they are reported to be doing, and

and ,

and....

Now Hal, if one of those ands is wrong -- just one -- then your scenario falls apart.

On the other hand, I have come up with three or four reasons that seem to be accepted at one time or another by anyone, and if even one of my explanations is correct -- just one -- then I've explained it without having to postulate all that Spaceship Guys stuff.

That's Occam's Razor, Hal900.

Whose hypothesis is the simplest: yours or mine?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Off-the_street gives the best reasons why skepticism is healthy. There may be something out there, but no one has yet produced any credible proof, or even reasonable evidence. Every 'absolute proof' I have ever seen is either highly suspect or has a simpler, more likely mundane explanation. Occam's Razor is a valid set of principles that should be studied by any researcher in any field.

Conspiracy theorists need to check themselves for selective perception, confirmation bias, and consistency bias -- three psychological traits present in all people and hinder an objective analysis of facts. And 'eyewitness' testimony is frequently (usually?) tainted with confabulation. Professional investigators know eyewitnesses are unreliable sources of information.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
OTS, I will agree that not every sighting are space guys. But it only takes one sighting that is true for the hypothesis to be correct.

Referring to the best evidence from military witnesses, are you willing to accept that every sighting and radar return is wrong? I know people in the military are just people to, but they are trained to identify craft and operate radar equipment. I find it hard to believe every event was a mistake.

So let's assume that something happened, and now try to figure out what it is. By the witnesses accounts, they say they must be intelligently controlled and the technology far surpasses our own. They are able to disable equipment (nukes), for some unknown reason. They have also watched on radar a UFO overtake aircraft, which are never seen again.

What other explanation could there be? IMO, either they are space guys, which the witnesses also think, or something else. I keep my mind open when trying to figure this out. I will say that it could something else, possibly time travelers, which would be no less fantastic.

But if you believe that every account was a mistake, then it would still be worth investigating to find out why everyone is hallucinating or why the equipment doesn't work right. Even the official investigation Project Blue Book has around 700 unexplained sightings. But the conclusion is that there's nothing to it? IMO, to say there’s nothing to it is being ignorant.

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
OTS, I will agree that not every sighting are space guys. But it only takes one sighting that is true for the hypothesis to be correct.


That is true, but even at that, unless you can garner the proof that one sighting is correct, you just simply have no way to validate that one event



Referring to the best evidence from military witnesses, are you willing to accept that every sighting and radar return is wrong? I know people in the military are just people to, but they are trained to identify craft and operate radar equipment. I find it hard to believe every event was a mistake.


True enough, but even if they are all not mistaken, we have no evidence that they are the "space guys from arcturus"... or whatever.



So let's assume that something happened, and now try to figure out what it is. By the witnesses accounts, they say they must be intelligently controlled and the technology far surpasses our own. They are able to disable equipment (nukes), for some unknown reason. They have also watched on radar a UFO overtake aircraft, which are never seen again.


Still absolutely no evidence that it is space guys. We keep invoking Occam, which would be very well and good, if we knew all there was to know. However, what if ... What if, the real solution is something that is absolutely beyond our current ability to even come up with a reasonable hypothesis?



What other explanation could there be? IMO, either they are space guys, which the witnesses also think, or something else. I keep my mind open when trying to figure this out. I will say that it could something else, possibly time travelers, which would be no less fantastic.


Here again, you are implying a solution based on best guess and have no way to either validate, or invalidate your conclusion, other than by saying, "Well! It's gotta be something"!



But if you believe that every account was a mistake, then it would still be worth investigating to find out why everyone is hallucinating or why the equipment doesn't work right. Even the official investigation Project Blue Book has around 700 unexplained sightings. But the conclusion is that there's nothing to it? IMO, to say there’s nothing to it is being ignorant.


No one that has posted here that is skeptical, up to and including me, is saying there is nothing there. Most of us who are skeptical just aren't willing to jump on the "It's gotta be space guys" band wagon.

Certainly, there is something there, but there is no proof, or even evidence, to give more than a conjecture that it is something within your paradigm.

What is it? I dunno! Could even be something that I don't have enough intelligence to comprehend. There simply is not proof that it is anything I even dream or could fantasize about. Sort of like the mathematical, scientific, or analytical capabilities of an ant compared to that of Off_the_Street.

Many of us skeptics simply have adopted a wait and see attitude. All the investigation based on what evidence there is is very much like the five blind men describing the elephant. Now we need a guy who can really see to tell us that the five various analysis or which of them is true....



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86

Originally posted by Hal9000
OTS, I will agree that not every sighting are space guys. But it only takes one sighting that is true for the hypothesis to be correct.


That is true, but even at that, unless you can garner the proof that one sighting is correct, you just simply have no way to validate that one event

Witnesses have provided recorded radar returns, although it's not proof, I consider it strong evidence. It is better than fuzzy pictures, although some pictures should also be included as evidence.





Referring to the best evidence from military witnesses, are you willing to accept that every sighting and radar return is wrong? I know people in the military are just people to, but they are trained to identify craft and operate radar equipment. I find it hard to believe every event was a mistake.


True enough, but even if they are all not mistaken, we have no evidence that they are the "space guys from arcturus"... or whatever.

At this point I'm just saying that something is happenning. With all the evidence available, if this were put in front of a jury in a court of law, it would be equivelent to convincting someone on circumstantial evidence because it is beyond a reasonable doubt.





So let's assume that something happened, and now try to figure out what it is. By the witnesses accounts, they say they must be intelligently controlled and the technology far surpasses our own. They are able to disable equipment (nukes), for some unknown reason. They have also watched on radar a UFO overtake aircraft, which are never seen again.


Still absolutely no evidence that it is space guys. We keep invoking Occam, which would be very well and good, if we knew all there was to know. However, what if ... What if, the real solution is something that is absolutely beyond our current ability to even come up with a reasonable hypothesis?

I was applying Occum's Razor to all the sightings in general, not one in particular. Saying that the simplest answer to all the sightings is that there is something going on. And I agree that it could be something else that we don't understand, so why not investigate it?





What other explanation could there be? IMO, either they are space guys, which the witnesses also think, or something else. I keep my mind open when trying to figure this out. I will say that it could something else, possibly time travelers, which would be no less fantastic.


Here again, you are implying a solution based on best guess and have no way to either validate, or invalidate your conclusion, other than by saying, "Well! It's gotta be something"!

Well it does have to be something.
But really, I'll list other things that it might be: Interdimensional, Ghosts, Mothmen, God, or space guys. Well out of this list, I think the best guess would be extraterrestrial. Maybe it is something else though that could explain all of these phenomenon. Wouldn't you like to find out?



Certainly, there is something there, but there is no proof, or even evidence, to give more than a conjecture that it is something within your paradigm.

What is it? I dunno! Could even be something that I don't have enough intelligence to comprehend. There simply is not proof that it is anything I even dream or could fantasize about.

Again, if you agree there is something to it, don't you think the government be investigating it? Look at all the stupid stuff the govt. wastes money on, why not waste a little more?

IMO, the government knows more than they are telling, and that is why they don't investigate. Could be good, or bad, I don't know. I think in either case we should be told.

All this quoting is giving me a headache.


Edit: trimmed quotes, and elaborated.

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
“OTS, I will agree that not every sighting are space guys. But it only takes one sighting that is true for the hypothesis to be correct.”

Possibly. Now go find me that one sighting which has incontrovertible proof, and I will be out there greeting the Spaceship Guys myself

”Referring to the best evidence from military witnesses, are you willing to accept that every sighting and radar return is wrong?”

I have heard stories about how people in the military have reported anomalous radar returns, but I have never seen them, and neither have you.

“I know people in the military are just people to, but they are trained to identify craft and operate radar equipment. I find it hard to believe every event was a mistake.”

I don’t know anything about these radar returns, and neither do you. Some could be one thing some could be another, three of them could be Spaceship Guys, or maybe thirty-three could be. You don’t know, and neither do I. That’s not evidence, it is absence of evidence.

And although the true believers like to say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", it is absence of evidence. Shall we move on?

”So let's assume that something happened, and now try to figure out what it is.”

How can you figure out an assumption?

“By the witnesses accounts, they say they must be intelligently controlled and the technology far surpasses our own."

How do you get "intelligently controlled" and technology far surpasses..." from seeing a bunch of jumping lights?

"They are able to disable equipment (nukes), for some unknown reason. They have also watched on radar a UFO overtake aircraft, which are never seen again.”

But none of those reports mean anything. For example, there never was an attempt that I know of of a Spaceship Guy (or anything else) interfering with a nuclear test, right? So where do you get this "disable nuke" stuff?

You’re assuming that something is a certain way and trying to come up with a rationale for your assumption.

Big deal.

I can start by “assuming” you are a girl and buttressing my assumption with the fact that many dresses are sold in your home town, and that your high school has girls’ restrooms.

Does that mean you’re a girl? Is that any evidence that you’re a girl?

No.

“What other explanation could there be? IMO, either they are space guys, which the witnesses also think, or something else. I keep my mind open when trying to figure this out. I will say that it could something else, possibly time travelers, which would be no less fantastic.”

We just had this conversation, when we talked about Occam’s razor. By the way, I don’t see you commenting on the Occam’s razor exercise; do you agree that using Occam supports my assertions rather than yours? Why or why not?

”But if you believe that every account was a mistake, then it would still be worth investigating to find out why everyone is hallucinating or why the equipment doesn't work right.”

Fine. Go ahead and investigate.

“Even the official investigation Project Blue Book has around 700 unexplained sightings. But the conclusion is that there's nothing to it? IMO, to say there’s nothing to it is being ignorant.”

Opinions are like noses; everyone has one.

Well, okay, everyone but Michael Jackson, and no one cares what he thinks, anyway.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I am a skeptic because I've never shook hands with an alien before. There are plenty of things that I cannot explain, and that's where I'll leave it.

I need irrefutable proof.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Thats the reason why they are called skeptics



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
OTS, instead of quoting line by line, I will try to answer you in general.

The radar return evidence I'm referring to I read about from the Disclosure Project, and the witness had a video and printouts of the radar in his hand during the press conference they held when trying to get a congressional hearing. The witness said he was ready to testify under oath in front of Congress and would provide the printouts as evidence. You can watch the news conference and see the witnesses themselves. You can also look into it more here.

As far as UFO's disabling nukes you can check out the The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident for starters, but there are many more.

As far as Occum's Razor I replyed in a previous post.



I was applying Occum's Razor to all the sightings in general, not one in particular. Saying that the simplest answer to all the sightings is that there is something going on.




We just had this conversation, when we talked about Occam’s razor. By the way, I don’t see you commenting on the Occam’s razor exercise; do you agree that using Occam supports my assertions rather than yours? Why or why not?

Are you refering to this thread or another? Sorry I missed it.

I can't say that I am applying it correctly, I was using it more as an anecdote. So sue me. Does everyone else on this forum hold to your rules when it comes to this?

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Off_the_Streets, there are quite a few UFO observations which were more than evidences. And almost every month (if not every week) there's an air controller somewhere on this planet that sees a UFO on the radar... and I mean objects that are unidentified and are still left unidentified after further communication attempts.

Ever heard of the 1982 Anchorage incident??? Both pilots and passenger of a large commercial airplane saw a huge flying object about the size of two 747s flying near Anchorage. THis case has been well documented and it was massively covered in the mainstream when it happened back then (I even remember seeing this report on TV when I was a kid). Google that and you'll find plenty of reliable informations on it.

Last year, pilots of the Mexican Air Force have recorded an infrared video capture of a group of objects flying above the clouds, not very far from the plane they were flying, and moving at impressive speeds. These objects could be seen only through the IR camera, as they pilots were unable to locate the objects with their eyes. The case has been reported on Mexico's major news channels as well as on CNN. The Mexican Military did NOT deny the authenticity of this recording, as they recognized it as an official Air Force footage, and one of their officials even suggested in an news report back then that it might have been some highly-advanced top secret US aircrafts equipped with a cloaking technology.

There's a thread here on ATS about the US military having used tanks and anti-air cannons to shoot down a huge UFO over Los Angeles during WW 2. THe event really occured and it was reported in major newspapers. A substantial amount of ammunitions were used to destroy the object (which was slowly hovering over an area of the city, before quickly disappearing later), but this did not seemd to do any damage to it. The closest thing to such a slow-flying object would have been a blimp, but given the firepower that the military used against it, it would have been wiped out in no time. Furthermore, not any aircraft of any sort -even a modern one- could have sustained such massive firepower. The military concluded that it must have been an enemy aircraft (from the Japanese), but no explanations were given to the nature and origin of such an indestructible flying aircraft and therefore it remained an unidentified object since then.

I don't have the time or patience for giving you a list of all the accounts of UFO observation that I'm aware of and that are undeniable proofs that there are UFOs. But these are just the best I heard of.

As for the proofs that aliens are visiting us, well I never said anything on that. There might be a few evidences of it, but even I have some doubts about it...



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Echtelion
I Googled 1982 Anchorage UFO and didn't get a single hit on the first page of a UFO sighting in Anchorage in 1982. I got a lot about a Japanese sighting in 1982 and a few UFO groups who have Anchorage addresses. I'm sure somebody in Anchorage saw a UFO in 1982, people see them every day all over the globe, but it was not a well-studied case, or else I would have got all kinds of hits from all the UFO sites on the first Google search page.

The Mexican Air Force UFO was clearly FLIR images of oils wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Look at my posts in that thread for all the proof you need.

Also, see my posts about the 1942 LA incident. The photo is NOT a UFO. The eyewitness testimony of that incident ranges from seeing nothing at all, to seeing a large, slow moving object, to seeing anywhere from 1-200 aircraft in the sky, and even reports of a plane that was shot down. Some reports say an aircraft factory was bombed, some say nothing was bombed. I'm not gong to type more about it, read my posts in that thread and read the links I posted. That was not a "spaceship guys" incident.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Like I said before, I am skeptical.

Not ignorant of ANY INFO.

So to the posts that have been posted on this thread, interesting but not quite hitting the right buttons.

There are things that cannot be explaind. Yet.

Not only are there aliens, but other matters like, our planet earth.!

As a human race, we have alot to learn



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   


The Mexican Air Force UFO was clearly FLIR images of oils wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Look at my posts in that thread for all the proof you need.


False! These lights are clearly MOVING on the footage -and moving separately- and are ABOVE the clouds. I've heard this argument from skeptics before but with all due respect, it's plain BS. The living proof that many people and institutions in the skeptic community will accept just about every explanation that comes to their minds -rational or not, realistic or not- rather than admitting that it's a UFO. You people are afraid of the unknown. Scared of the dark, just like little kids.

As for the 1982 incident, it's 1986, not 1982. Sorry for misleading you. It was the JAL Flight 1628 sighting. And there were only pilots, since it was a cargo plane. The FAA was'nt able to debunk the sighting, or neither give any down-to-earth explanation of it, aside from some stupid guesses from skeptic journalists, like that they saw Jupiter... Actually there were 3 UFOs, two small and the other taht was bigger tahn two airplanes. Jupiter? Yeah riiight.

Here's a few links:

www.totse.com...

ufologie.net...

www.ufoevidence.org...

ufos.about.com...

www.ufobc.ca...

www.skepticfiles.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
As for the 1982 incident, it's 1986, not 1982. Sorry for misleading you. It was the JAL Flight 1628 sighting. And there were only pilots, since it was a cargo plane. The FAA was'nt able to debunk the sighting, or neither give any down-to-earth explanation of it, aside from some stupid guesses from skeptic journalists, like that they saw Jupiter

This was the case I was refering to. The FAA Head of Accidents John Callahan, which is the first witness on the Disclosure Project Press Conference, had a vidio and printout of the radar returns in hand ready to testify in front of congress. Unfortunatley their request was denied.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join