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.
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
First , we have tons of " Soft" evidence , enough to make a conviction in a court of law!
Are you sure about this bit?
I've read myriad personal stories and anecdotes, theories and assumptions, but I've seen very, very little evidence - soft or hard. Help me out here? Second hand information and lack of physical evidence would make a conviction very, very difficult....
I'm still sitting on the fence on this entire issue, though I'm yet to see compelling evidence of the existence of alien life forms, although it's not outwith the realms of possibility for such evidence, if it existed, to have been squirrelled away by (insert government/agency/other party).
It seems outlandish though, to think that nobody - ever, anywhere - has ever been able to sneak, steal, borrow, or otherwise obtain, this hard evidence and get it out there in the public eye.
I'd also be interested in the claim made earlier, that there's more than enough proof that governments have taken/stolen evidence of alien contact. What is this proof?
One other thing. It's flawed logic to think "millions of stories mean that there must be truth to it". Remember, millions of us also thought the earth was flat, because of various stories related to travels and theories related therein.
And of course, that turned out to be false.
It seems outlandish though, to think that nobody - ever, anywhere - has ever been able to sneak, steal, borrow, or otherwise obtain, this hard evidence and get it out there in the public eye.
If I ask you to show me hard evidence that the B-2 Stealth Bomber exists, what would you show me ? Do you know someone that has a piece of a B-2 ? Do you think that someone can just steal some scap of Radar abosoring material from a B-2 ? Do you think our Millitary would allow this to happen?
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Ok. The difference here is:
The images shown of the B2 cannot be reliably or realistically explained as being anything other than a B2. We have plans, blueprints, builds and examples of a B2, as a reference point.
The UFO photographs on the other hand, have no such reference points - what is a blurry object in a particular image can reasonably be explained by several theories. Is there a point of reference?
Can you see the difference in approach to evidence? With that in mind, is there any other evidence available?
Case and point: A UFO event of mass proportion: a giant Alien spaceship hovering over one of our major cities, threatening our very existence.
In a matter of a few short minutes, the entire southern area of California was looking to the skies, watching the intense spotlight beams converging on the giant invading UFO. The 37th's anti-aircraft guns helped light up the night, firing volley after volley at the large craft. Many eyewitness reports would state that the large object took many direct hits, but appeared undamaged. The 30+ minute barrage would send fragmented shells over homes, businesses, and citizens. In the aftermath six individuals were found dead from the spent and fragmented artillery shells.
As the giant UFO moved away, things began to get back to normal, as normal as things could get, considering the times. The military clampdown on Japanese citizens, and security restrictions on its native populace made this an unusual time. Had it not been for America being at war, news of this event would have gained more momentum. The lesson to be learned from this is simply that we must be ready at all times to defend our country, and our globe from any invading force that would take our freedom as we know it from us.
"Wonder why they picked such a clear night for a raid?"
30 minutes of gun fight and nobody seems to take pictures? Sure it was a dangerous situation, but are you going to say that nobody else snapped some shots?
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Lost-shaman....with all due respect, your argument just doesn't hold any water.
You can call a B2 jet "a piece of pink birthday cake" - this doesn't make it so. Don't misunderstand me - I'm the first to concede that not only do we not have a full understanding of the universe, but also we have no real clue as to who (or what) may or may not be living there too. But your requirements for what constitutes proof, and what doesn't, just don't add up. Thus, your passage about having enough evidence to (excuse my paraphrasing) "get a conviction in court" seems nonsensical.
In all honesty, I can't quite understand why you think there's even a vague similarity between the proof of (to use your own example) of a B2, versus proof of a UFO. Did I miss where you offered a point of reference for the latter (hey, it happens. I miss things sometimes)?
This is why I'm on the fence. There's not enough proof either way; much as I could tell you I'm really the daughter of Prince Charles, saying so doesn't make it true.
Out of sheer curiosity - what do you consider "hard" evidence?
Edit:
ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
proof ( P )
n.
1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a) The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b) A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a) Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b) The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Originally posted by whaaa
Trying to prove/disprove UFOs. ETs, paranormal, PSI etc. on the internet is folly.
Originally posted by whaaa
Trying to prove/disprove UFOs. ETs, paranormal, PSI etc. on the internet is folly.
However in the USA there are "hotspots". The one I am most familiar with is the San Luis valley in So. Colorado. Do some real reasearch and go outside. In my youth I was a cynic, arrogant, skeptical, closed minded spiritual bigot. But after spending some time in "The Valley" I had to admit that there are things that can't be quantified or Qualified by science as we know it. I don't know if my experience was paranormal, UFO related, mind control or PSI. Just that it was real and it knocked the cynacism and arrogance out of me. The experience was so frightening and strange; it changed me in a very fundalmental way.
I have no interest in satisfying internet voyeurs. I am not writing any books, I have nothing to sell. I know I can't convince anyone of anything.
The challenge to those folks that like to call others "wackos" "wingnuts" "ufo crazies" or other deragotory terms; TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER, go somewhere OUTSIDE and do some firsthand research. Might I suggest the American Southwest. Even if you don't have a mind blowing experience; you will enjoy a beautiful part of this great land.
I offered to show the well known skeptics on this forum [we know who they are] the Valley and its accompaning high strangeness. No response!!
As Sen. John McCain said: "all hat; no cattle"
"nothing so gladdens the heart as when a fool abandons his folly"