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.

 

Why is the Believability Threshold Different for UFOs?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   


I probably shouldn't respond to this because I don't consider myself a 'debunker', but rather than disputing that this occurred (which I can't) I'll just say that there's nothing about that event which compels an ET explanation to me.


Numerous aerial objects, captured on radar, not US aircraft, nor a possibility of being any foreign craft (i.e. no carriers detected, etc.) and exhibiting flight characteristics beyond those of any known craft at the time, and you fail to see what compels an ET explanation?

As for keeping the secret and no knowing, consider this:

You are in charge of protecting citizens from the enemy. Here you have some entity which can invade your airspace at will, disable your most advanced defenses, and seemingly abduct citizens at will. Would YOU confess to the problem? Or would you cover it up?
My point is that they may know of ET existence and visitation, but still have no idea how their crafts work, what their motives are, etc. It's a bit like a caveman finding a broken tv set. It'll take a while before he figures it out and sees a tv show....




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Numerous aerial objects, captured on radar, not US aircraft, nor a possibility of being any foreign craft (i.e. no carriers detected, etc.) and exhibiting flight characteristics beyond those of any known craft at the time, and you fail to see what compels an ET explanation?

Yeah, I know. Frustrating, aren't I? But, we don't know they weren't US aircraft, just that they weren't publicly claimed to be. And exhibited flight characteristics beyond those of any craft [admitted to exist] at the time.


Originally posted by Gazrok
You are in charge of protecting citizens from the enemy. Here you have some entity which can invade your airspace at will, disable your most advanced defenses, and seemingly abduct citizens at will. Would YOU confess to the problem? Or would you cover it up?

And I've considered that at length. And I won't deny it's possible. But I've also seen enough evidence where a case could be made that a great deal of this stuff is part of a disinfo campaign designed to make the ultimate announcement of an alien threat seem plausible. Not that I'm conspiratorially minded or anything
.
Of course the ultimate goof would be if both scenarios are correct...aliens are visiting and the 'powers' are unaware and still ready to hoax contact for an ulterior motive.
I'd really love to have your take on this book. If I wasn't such a tightwad, I'd send it to you
.

I know, there's a bazillion books out there on this topic, but I've gotta throw this one in your direction.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Gazrok
Numerous aerial objects, captured on radar, not US aircraft, nor a possibility of being any foreign craft (i.e. no carriers detected, etc.) and exhibiting flight characteristics beyond those of any known craft at the time, and you fail to see what compels an ET explanation?

Yeah, I know. Frustrating, aren't I? But, we don't know they weren't US aircraft, just that they weren't publicly claimed to be. And exhibited flight characteristics beyond those of any craft [admitted to exist] at the time.


The Secret Aircraft hypothesis only works to explain fairly recent sightings and events , but it can not explain the UFO wave of the 1890's or the appearance of UFOs in renaissance artwork. It does not explain any of these other sightings from around the world that match the descriptions and characteristics of the recent sightings.

In that way the Secret Aircraft hypothesis fails, while it seems to be more reasonable than the ETH , you don't choose a hypothesis because it seems more reasonable to you.

You choose a hypothesis because it best explains all the evidence and observations in the simplest terms without the need to add , beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain the evidence and observations. ( Occam's Razor)



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Unfortunately for all you unbelievers and debunkers out there, it's all true.

Yes, our little grey friends do exist, like it or not, so get used to it.

I come from a military background and have family high up in the US Government / Military. They work on top secret reverse engineering projects and did indeed allow my Wife and I into what we all call Area 51 for a day back in August 2002.

Check out my previous posts.

I didn't know what they did there until I was there and saw some quite interesting things.

All I can say is my whole life has changed since that day.

Believe it OK, it will happen and soon. Trust me on this one .....



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Of course, there's no photographic evidence for what occurred in the 19th century and previously. Just eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously unreliable, and certain interpretations of Renaissance art. In my opinion introducing an ET component certainly adds what is beyond necessary to explain in the simplest terms. But that's just me. I'm prepared to be wrong.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Yeah, I know. Frustrating, aren't I? But, we don't know they weren't US aircraft, just that they weren't publicly claimed to be. And exhibited flight characteristics beyond those of any craft [admitted to exist] at the time.


This hypothesis fails though, because there simply is NO way that if we had such craft in the 40's, we wouldn't have such craft now in the private sector (over half a century later), let alone in military usage. This is why the "secret project" idea fails. It doesn't logically fit with the way the military and it's contractors do business. With most contractors recently having finance issues, you can bet that such tech would be going more public, IF it was ours all along. (and would have decades ago)...



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
"I'd be interested to know what other possibilities there are. " == yeahright

I can give you two off the top of my head (quoting from the PJ on trial forum).

1. Set up for counter-espionage response. Majic was pretty good on that one.
2. Set up for disclosure hoax. Hidatsa was pretty much the instigator of that one.

"Yes, our little grey friends do exist, like it or not, so get used to it. " == minkey53

Reality has ALWAYS been far stranger and more exciting than fiction. The greys do not
make sense other than science fiction. If thats the reality we are in, the hoax thing is a
GIVEN. If I see the Pilsbury Doughboy dismount from a saucer, or a grey, or something else
out of class B science fiction, ITS a HOAX, folks. But you can fool all of the people
some of the time, or some of the people all of the time.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
We're on the same page. I guess I just wasn't clear. I believe the two scenarios you list fall under my "earth-based tech" version. I'm open to the possibility of ET visitation. I just don't happen to think that's what's being witnessed.

There's definitely a conspiracy here, folks. Either we're being prepped for a hoax invasion (which is what I believe) or the higher levels of gov't and the 'real powers' know it's alien and are covering it up. Probably because they're freaked out about not knowing what to do about it.

The third possibility I've considered is that this Earth-based technology, based upon Tesla's work, is so disruptive and potentially dangerous that it can't be mainstreamed. That guy was so far ahead of everyone else that his discoveries and innovations would appear unworldly, some even to this day. What's the quote about science at it's most advanced is indistinguishable from magic?

Anyway, sorry for the thread hijack. Seems like topics frequently end up veering off on a different, if related, tangent. Actually, I don'tthink the believability threshold is different. Some people will believe virtually anything, some believe almost nothing. Just depends upon which end of the elephant the blind man grabs.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The threshold is much higher on this issue , because it violates everything that has ever been taught to anyone who is alive today.

Any other discovery would be just that another discovery made by the most sophisticated life form in the Milky Way , .. Mankind.

The public disclosure of the discovery that E.T. exists and has no need to " phone home " when he already has pals that will just swoop in and pick him up from the stratosphere , would not be another discovery it would be " one of those discoveries" that would have " Implications" .

I think when discussing public perception, the tendency to reject the available evidence and require extra ordinary evidence even when strictly speaking in terms of further research , has to do with the fact that the majority of people are not able or prepared to re-think their opinions.

In English now ,.. almost everyone grew up being told Santa Claus was popping through the chimney on Christmas eve bringing them presents, but as kids grow up they discover the fact Santa isn't really bring presents on X-Mas.

Most children are able to make that transition from one reality to the other , however as adults perceptions of reality become more rigid and a much smaller percentage of the population is able to reject the ideas they accept as true and replace them with new Ideas.

Humans are not born with instincts , we learn them.

It is always much easier to reinforce old Ideas and misconceptions and deal with the consequences and inadequacies of those ideas , than it is to form new Ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join