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.

 

What if.... ??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
What if the government really didn't have contact with aliens?

What if they didn't recover a crashed disk at Roswell?

What if there aren't any alien bodies in cold storage in Ohio?

What if all they test at Area 51 were advances aircraft of terrestrial origin?

What if when man landed on the moon, there wasn't anyone there watching?

What if the "truth" was that there are unexplained aerial phenomena that may or may not be UFO's, but nobody had any hard proof?

What then?

How are all these things inconsistent with hard, cold facts that we have?




posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
What if there were no hypothetical questions?


Seriously, if all you said above were to be true, then not much else about our daily lives would change. We'd just be left with an amazing amount of innacurate evidence and raw data.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
ummm...we would continue our lives....



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
What if the government really didn't have contact with aliens?

Who said they did?

What if the "truth" was that there are unexplained aerial phenomena that may or may not be UFO's, but nobody had any hard proof?

No one does.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
What this really says is that we don't have any evidence at all that would be inconsistent or contradictory with the truth of my hypothetical questions.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Why did you ask them if you knew we didn't have any evidence?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   


Seriously, if all you said above were to be true, then not much else about our daily lives would change. We'd just be left with an amazing amount of innacurate evidence and raw data.


The last question asked what would be inaccurate or inconsistent with this? Is there really any evidence or data that would truly be inaccurate if these statements were true? There's tons of anecdotal information that would be contradicted... but what about real information?

I've never liked the focus on proving the existence of aliens/extra terrestrials/etc. by requiring hard evidence of them being here. It seems that no matter what type of evidence people gather, the skeptics will also say that the aliens should land on the white house lawn. Of course if they did, it would be explained in the press as a hastily arranged state dinner for the prime minister of zetareticuland... a new russian republic that W can't pronounce.

Why can't we look at what we know and use the skeptic's own truths as a basis for debunking their explanations?

I'm looking for some serious thought on this question (nobody needs to answer the hypotheticals themselves).

thanks...



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I’ll answer your last question for each point…




How are all these things inconsistent with hard, cold facts that we have?


What if the government really didn't have contact with aliens?

It is inconsistent with numerous witnesses (many of which are high-ranking military officers, including intel) who observed alien beings (live and/or dead) recovered by the US government. It is inconsistent with the US monopoly on military and scientific advancements after 1947.

What if they didn't recover a crashed disk at Roswell?

Then what did they recover? It was the US Army’s own press release that they recovered a disc. If it was Mogul, why no secret retrievals for previous or subsequent Mogul recoveries. Why the secret and rushed flights to Air Materiel Command? Why the military cordon only for THIS recovery? How can senior intel officers of one of the worlds most important bases (housed the ONLY atomic bomber wing of the time) mistake balsa wood and tin foil for alien debris? If it wasn’t a disc, what was it? If a secret project, why is it still classified over 50 years later? Surely one of our planes (or that of an enemy) would be obsolete by now, no matter how advanced in 1947. That is why it is inconsistent with the USAF explanation.

What if there aren't any alien bodies in cold storage in Ohio?

The sources stating Ohio (specifically Wright-Patterson) are pretty dated. If ever existing, there is no evidence showing it currently stores such things.

What if all they test at Area 51 were advances aircraft of terrestrial origin?

More likely than not, you are probably correct. Aside from a few witnesses (who all seem to have numerous skeletons in their closets, regarding credibility), there isn’t much good evidence to suggest it is used for anything more than that.

What if when man landed on the moon, there wasn't anyone there watching?

Doesn’t seem to have changed anything, one way or the other.

What if the "truth" was that there are unexplained aerial phenomena that may or may not be UFO's, but nobody had any hard proof?

I think you mean may or may not be alien craft, as if unidentified, then they are truly UFOs by definition…
That is actually where we are now. We have no hard PROOF, just EVIDENCE. No doubt the vast majority of sightings are misidentifications of fairly normal phenomena…still, if even ONE sighting isn’t, then we’re still looking at ET, aren’t we?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.... I think there are a few things in it that are very helpful...




It is inconsistent with the US monopoly on military and scientific advancements after 1947.


This intrigues me. On the one hand, the U.S. had just asserted itself as the dominant world military power, had just split the atom and unleashed the world's first nuclear weapon on an enemy, and began the process of cherry-picking its defeated foes for all of the technology and related personnel they could plunder (after all, to the victor go the spoils).

Given the state of post-war Germany and Japan, is it truly suspicious that the U.S. maintained technological supremacy over the world for half a century? Or is it more suspicious that going into WW2, the U.S. was technolgically inferior to much of the rest of the industrialized world, but yet emerged over the next half a century to be technologically superior by a wide margin? I'd like someone to point out a particular aspect of U.S. technology, however, that should not have been a result of the technology path we were on pre-1947.




It was the US Army’s own press release that they recovered a disc. If it was Mogul, why no secret retrievals for previous or subsequent Mogul recoveries. Why the secret and rushed flights to Air Materiel Command? Why the military cordon only for THIS recovery? How can senior intel officers of one of the worlds most important bases (housed the ONLY atomic bomber wing of the time) mistake balsa wood and tin foil for alien debris? If it wasn’t a disc, what was it? If a secret project, why is it still classified over 50 years later?



In my line of work, circumstantial evidence is as good as any other sort of evidence... its value is weighed based on the credibility of the source. Here, there is almost no dispute as to the weight and authenticity of this evidence and much of the more trivial, factual evidence that is inconsistent with way the government would have acted if their official story was true.




What if when man landed on the moon, there wasn't anyone there watching?




Doesn’t seem to have changed anything, one way or the other.


Any yet it's been 30+ years since man has set foot on the moon? When, in history, has mankind reached a milestone or technological achievement only to abandon it? I'm not asserting any belief in the alien moon base theory... but why go all the way to the moon and then mothball the whole project? Why not go on to mars? This whole thing is so inconsistent with human nature and the natural spirit of technology advancement that it baffles me.

Someone needs to send a few Space:1999 dvd's to Nasa and remind them of what things were supposed to be like at the end of the last century



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Why not go on to mars? This whole thing is so inconsistent with human nature and the natural spirit of technology advancement that it baffles me.


Simple...the Cold War.

Space was no longer for dreams and visionaries, it was a battleground.
The focus was taken away from exploration and put towards arming ourselves to the teeth, and forcing our enemy into bankruptcy while trying to keep up.

It's a tactic that was most effective, but at the cost of further exploration.

Now there is a new boogeyman, the terrorist, and he too now has the focus, but space's role is one more for spy satellites, etc.

It's likely to be a while before we have that same pioneering spirit again, and hunger for man, not a robot, to walk on Mars.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   


Space was no longer for dreams and visionaries, it was a battleground.


I agree. That makes sense, given that the focus of the late-70's, early 80's (the Reagan years, in particular) was to outspend the USSR, realizing that a closed economy couldn't keep up. But this ties up another loose end, even though I have never been a believer in the theory that we were warned-off of the moon.

That leaves us with the anomolous behavior exhibited by the Army in response to whatever occured at Roswell and American technological advantages following WW2. Of these, only Roswell remains inexplicable without coming to the conclusion that the government has yet to provide a complete and honest explanation of what happened there. Just last night, I watched the History Channel's "MJ-12" show again. Despite their usual slant toward the skeptics, it was hard for them to present this show without drawing the conclusion that we're still missing some information... and even though I think the MJ-12 "papers" are not authentic, I think they are more than a mere hoax.

Still, if there's anyone who can point to a technological advance that is inconsistent with where we "should" be at this point, I'd like to investigate and see whether it's possible to authenticate the inventor's research prior to the relevant subject matter.




top topics



 
0

log in

join