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.

 

A question based on.... Astronomy?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I came back to this topic because i realized the answer I had posted last time did not post.

Off the Street, you are incorrect in several of your assumptions.

First off, Tombaugh was NOT an Ameteur astronomer. He was when he disovered Pluto, but continued his education and got his degree.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
klx.com...
www.achievement.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

A mere "ameteur" he was not, and certainly NOT when he made his UFO sightings. He had by that point THOUSANDS of hours of night sky watching.




They didn't "report" a UFO, I assume, for fear of ridicule. But they had no problem in "reporting" it to someone who obviously had a pro-UFO agenda, which means that the word about their UFO sightings would get out and -- there goes the ridicule! That doesn't make sense. Why would they hide something and then admit it?


Because they knew Hynek would preserve their confidentiality, and would not list their names, thus, they felt free to tell Hynek of their sightings, knowing the word would not get out to the rest of the scientific community. And when Hynek made this survey, he was still working for Bluebook, and was NOT "pro UFO" at this time, but was beginning to question whether or not there might be something to the whole thing. He made this unoffical survey to test the waters and see if indeed, his collegues might be experiencing the phenomenon too.




By the way, Tombaugh (according to your own cited web-site) interpreted flashes of light while observing Mars as evidence the thae Martians had set off an atomic bomb!


Which was not so unusual for this time. Before we sent probes to Mars, many highly respected scientists considered intelligent life on Mars a possibility. Even UFO debunker Menzel specualted Venus might harbor life, before our probes confirmed otherwise.




When you say "physical trace evidence" are you talking about actual physical evidence such as a piece of metal inexplicable by any other means? Or if you mean something else, exactly what is it?


Physical trace evidence, as in burnmarks, radiation traces, magentic anomalies, abnormal plant damage consistant with exposure to intense microwave or ionizing radiation, soil damage, physical injuries to both humans and animals, and yes, there have been cases where mysterious metal has been discovered and analyzied, then vanished. See the 1964 Zamora case, where metal samples scraped from rocks was sent to NASA for analysis, and vanished after that.

www.virtuallystrange.net...




And so was Darwin's ideas of Natural Selection Lyell's ideas about stratigraphy and Einstein's theory of Relativity and Wegener's theories of Continental Drift and Watson and Crick's ideas about replicating proteins and even Lister's theories of infection. All of those nutbar ideas threatened the reputations of powerful and influential scientists; yet, enough evidence came about so that even the scientists who didn't want to believe in them finally had to.


And the same is happening with Ufology. The evidence is piling up. But then again, with the above theories you have listed, you didnt see the government virulently denying or supressing anything to support those theories. But with continual discoveries of other planets, even in places where supposedly they could not exist, and the discovery of organic building blocks of life in space, scientists are slowly being forced to accept.




You still need to come up with evidence, not complaints.


I have come up with evidence. There is more friggin evidence out there than I can post here. My complaint to science is that they have behaved totally unscientific towards the phenomenon. Hynek once said "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and the public should not be taught that it is" yest thats basically what 95% of the scoentific community has done in the past, instead of actually going out, applying their skills to investigate it PROFESSIONALLY. Those who scoffed and dismissed UFO cases did little to no actual investigation on it. Had the scientists of the world in the early part of the phenomenon actually investigated and put some effort into the whole thing, wed probably have some answers. But because science failed, we are left with something that is a mystery, and thus, the speculation. This is the fault of science. Very few scientists have put effort into REAL investigation, and true investigation takes time, resources, and effort, little to none of which has been applied or utilized toward the subject. So we have to make do with what we have, and thus, are left with speculation.

Had scientists done what they are supposed to do, we might have discovered that UFOs were indeed alien space craft, or they might have discovered that they are not, but instead, are a totally knew phenomenon that could have advanced many areas of science. So, as far as I am concerned, it is because science has failed, we have Ufology and our theories. Thats science's fault. And its a legit complaint. The eveidence has been there. The will and effort to study it has not.




Whether or not you can "comfortably endorse" the Spaceship Guys assertion doesn't mean that scientists and engineers do, because they don't. If you're satisfied in your beliefs and don't care what the mainstream thinks, then you're good to go.


I dont "comfortably" endorse the spaceship theory. With the evidence presented, and the number of theories that abound, I have basically decided that the space ship theory fits MOST of the evidence. Had science done their job, Id might have a totally different theory, or a stronger version of the one I have. And youre right. I do not agree with the mainstream. Medical science is a good example. Every year they contradict their own findings, so it seems.




But you don't have enough evidence to convince 99 percent of the scientists and astronomers, and accusing them of bigotry and 'debunking' isn't going to change their minds -- or mine.


I have plenty of evidence. Had science even bothered to seriously study it, then we might be having a totally different debate. But my accusations of bigotry and debunking are not unfounded. There is plenty of EVIDENCE there. And Im not interested in changing anyones mind. I have formed my own opinions based on the evidence and personal experiences I have had. I really could care less if anyone else holds the same theories and opinions that I do. I dont need the "mainstreams" support to validate my own theories.

I am simply pointing out your own flawed information and incorrect assumptions.




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
This has been a fun argument to follow. There is a simple solution.
If you want a scientific look at something, FUND IT.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
This has been a fun argument to follow. There is a simple solution.
If you want a scientific look at something, FUND IT.


BINGO. Unfortunately, SERIOUS funding and study have not occured yet, with the scientific, government, and media communities scoffing and discarding the phenomenon before even truly seeing what is to be seen.



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join