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 it's so hard to belive in UFO's

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I see, looking back over your posts, where you are clearly saying and repeating that I am making a definite set of assumptions, when I say that things like big -"o"- needles are not needed for DNA samples.

And your right. I am.

I guess what I'm saying back is that those are assumptions that I'm comfortable with. I invested a great deal of my spare time (way back in the 80's, before I got complacent) in UFO research. I'll be up front and just tell you where I'm coming from, so as to be out in the open about my conclusions. And you raise a telling point, that we primates like to reach conclusions so that we don't have to bother thinking about things we're not interested in at the moment.

Periodically, I go back and review some of my conclusions, and update them a bit.

I'd also point out, I'm not "betting the bank" on these assumptions. I know they are tentative; I haven't wagered a million bucks on always being right.

However, if I see a glowing craft in the woods behind the house, I'll probably proceed with the following in mind:

1. I'm fairly confident that there are no other space-faring civilizations like ours in the galactic neighborhood that could come calling. "Like ours" means living biological entities that continuously inhabit 3-space and are socially organized to acheive common goals.

2. My bachelor's degree is in anthropology, and I have advanced degrees in related fields. Looking at the reports of contactees, I think the reports have a much stronger connection to folkloric accounts than to contacts between rival civilizations. What I mean is, farmer brown's reports of the thing that consumed his livestock sound amazingly like reports from 500 years ago of cattle being "elf-ridden" in the dark of the moon. Now compare Farmer brown's report with say, Diaz's "Conquest of New Spain," or the accounts of first Hawaiian contact with the Brits, and you'll see what I mean. There is a world of difference.

3. Notice, I'm not saying there is "nothing out there." I'm just saying it isn't a technologically advanced civilization of physical beings. I don't believe it is elves, either ( just in case you were wondering about that.).

I've seen UFO's, in a number of lighting conditions, both alone and with other groups of searchers. I have come to the conclusion that the best book on the topic remains John Keel's "The mothman prophecies." Not the movie, but the book. His assumptions in that book best explain the evidence available in 1971, as well as 2005.

In short, the force that many people perceive as "aliens" is not extra-terrestial, it is not a "living thing," and does not ever use devices capable of interstellar travel. I believe that these forces feed off of human attention, especially on fear, and are basically parasitic in nature. I think this explains the contradictory reports much better than the "alien" hypothesis does.

.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
In short, the force that many people perceive as "aliens" is not extra-terrestial, it is not a "living thing," and does not ever use devices capable of interstellar travel. I believe that these forces feed off of human attention, especially on fear, and are basically parasitic in nature. I think this explains the contradictory reports much better than the "alien" hypothesis does.


You kinda lost me on that last bit. Are you saying either human paranoia or peoples willingness to create abstract animals/beings to explain what man can't readily answer. Such as your example of elves.

I personaly think that there has been such a dearth of "awe inspring" or "movement defining" events in that past 20 years that believers are willing to see evidence in anything and everything put forward. More importantly is that most of this material is branded as "Proof" without going through the proper channels of investigation. That's simply saying, "Because I can't it explain what it is, it is of alien origin. It is an extra terrestrial life form. Therefore this is proof of alien existance."


There is no science in the world that operates that way. Conclusions of proof simply by not being to explain something do not qualify it as evidence.






[edit on 27-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I'm speculating that there is "something" out there. It's not just people imagining things. I don't know what it is. But it is there



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
dr_strangecraft:

Clever AND a groovy avatar, what’s not to like? *laughs*

I’m cool with your belief system, it works for you and that’s all that matters. I’m cool with nullsters belief system for the same reason. I’m Very cool with my own personal beliefs. They suit me.

What gets to me is when folks try to tell me that my beliefs are Wrong, their beliefs are Right (and I’m not saying you or nullster or anybody specific, just folks in general)

What gets to me even more is when folks start making stuff up to “prove” to me that my beliefs are Wrong and their beliefs are Right.

Like you, my formal training is heavily grounded in the sciences. Because of this, I believe that the cat can be both dead And alive at the same time, no paradox. Nothing is impossible (only improbable) and it takes an observer to create reality (ad infinitum)

It’s a crazy cosmoverse we think we live in. And because of that nothing is really alla that crazy (to me anyway)

I’m a believer. I can’t “prove” it so I don’t try and I don’t condemn folks who don’t want to believe with me. Until the hard-core concrete evidence that the nullsters of the world require comes along I’m going to hang out in left field with my beliefs.

If somebody comes along and tells me my beliefs are wrong, I’m gonna go a few rounds with them, and, hopefully, learn a little something in the process.

I actually find it very interesting that the nullster type folks have a hard time believing in the UFO gig. These are the cold fact, logic based, slide rule toting scientist types. These are the people that have no problem believing in a mythical Big Bang that happened when there was no time, in a place where there was no space. These are the folks that insist that Life just magically happened from generic ooze under a certain set of mysterious conditions that have yet to be clearly defined or recreated. If anybody could believe in a far fetched out of this world B.S. story it should be them, ya know?

26 dimensional space? No problem. Non linear causality? Every day. Paradoxical duality? Think nothing of if. UFO? Not a chance! *laughs*

And nullster I’m NOT picking on you personally, it just seems to me that you represent someone with an open mind who requires hard physical evidence before making a leap of UFO faith but would be willing to accept a mythical Big Bang because it “sounds logical” and I think that is indicative of most skeptics… also I just really like writing the word “nullster”, it’s a cool word that carries a lot of weight and hidden meanings… If I’ve offended or missed where you’re coming from then I’m truly sorry.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
torbjon - I understand everything you wrote and its pretty well put. See for my part I am extremely intrigued with aliens, ufos, and other strange phenomenon. To that I'll add that I have a very active and creative imagination. That being said it is not important for me as an individual for aliens or ufos to exist. So yes clear facts and physical evidence as opposed to passion and faith are how I measure validity. Applying those aspects keeps both feet on the ground while listening and then representing an unbiased view.

I also have wide varied interests in other subjects outside the UFO/Alien phenomenon. They either directly or indirectly offer insight into understaning what it is people see or present as fact. I firmly believe that people who are so focused on one aspect of their subject can not see the forrest for the trees.

I'll say that fiction is the key to tieng up many lose ends. Not unlike what the DeVinci Code did. It would be interesting to see a collaborative effort between creative minds binding events, conspiracy, and fiction to come up with theoretical solutions.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
to an old blog entry I wrote in may of 2004, called "why I don't believe in aliens?:

blogs.abovetopsecret.com...

More importantly, see my "Toward a calculus of the Paranormal" on the same blog.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
dr_strangecraft - Good read thanks for sharing that.
I figure as the trailor park clan gets a bit more informed on modern day medicine and non invasive surgeries, there is a chance these personal abduction stories may change over time. I say may change because there is no drama if aliens actually surpassed our current techniques. What so spooky about alien seemlessly extracting DNA from their victims remotely?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
i would just like to the add that maybe there is evidence already there has been a lot of speculation of so called crashes would the goverment really release all the facts to the public ?

just throwing that out there



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
leader of menI am working on something right now that addresses what I definately believe the US government would want to cover up.

I'm taking into consideration the increased UFO sightings of the 1945-1970's and the increased tensions brought on by the Cold War. I am researching either a dual role space program and an entirely independant military space program that were covertly run by the US in undisclosed territories.

The catch is that the programs operated outside protection of civilians and government employees with guarenteed "no accountability" in pusuits of a "Fail Safe" operation. I firmly believe that in the next 20-40 years, some very shocking disclosures about errant opertions and tests that deliberately put civilian and military personel in harms way will come to the fore front. Smaller cases effecting whole communities have already come out. What may be the big shock is that some of these tests may have been planned and executed outside the US. (No not terrorists acts) Much larger scale projects.

I personaly believe that the US government breathed a sigh of relief when people assigned a UFOs classification to everything they couldn't explain. What better allibi than "Someone from outer space did it". If a UFO contaminates the ground soil and makes civilians around a site ill, that's fine by these operatives. How would you serve a little green man for your ills and have a day in court?

None of this is to say fiction can't be fun. There is always a twist and I am readily applying some alien concepts.


[edit on 29-10-2005 by nullster]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Because at the Creation the humans were programmed to be skeptical , especially concerning UFOs and aliens. It made sense, if we think they wanted to live among us without being disturbed. Simple, isn't it?



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
There is no doubt in my mind that there is other life out there. There has to be.

However, there has been absolutely no proof what so ever to *me* that we have been visited or are being visited now. None. Not a shred of evidence IMHO.

Millions of cameras out there and not ONE CLOSE, CLEAR SHOT.

Millions of video cameras out there and NOT ONE CLOSE, CLEAR piece of footage.

Hundreds of so called "abductions" and alien sightings and NOT ONE CLEAR,CLOSE SHOT.

It amazes me what some people take or accept as proof.

A neat subject for which no proof exists. Like religion only that isn't the least bit interesting to me.

Tom

(if you don't like my difference of opinion hit the ignore user link, no problem.)



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomastro

Millions of cameras out there and not ONE CLOSE, CLEAR SHOT.

Millions of video cameras out there and NOT ONE CLOSE, CLEAR piece of footage.

Hundreds of so called "abductions" and alien sightings and NOT ONE CLEAR,CLOSE SHOT.

It amazes me what some people take or accept as proof.



I hate when people gripe about UFO picture quality and how when millions of people have all these cameras why are there no good pictures of Space Ships to look at?

Well I've decided to do a little experiment.

I encourage anyone to take pictures of IFOs like Air Craft and lets see how Clean and Clear our pictures look. ( Not here on this thread , this is just an example to make my point)

Here is my first attempt , I simply pretend that when I see an Air Craft its a UFO and run grab my average digital camera and take the best photos that I can and this is what I have so far.





As you can see these are not Clean and Close and Clear photos and these are pictures of slow moving predictable Air Craft.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   






As you can see these are not Clean and Close and Clear photos and these are pictures of slow moving predictable Air Craft.


Yet we can see clear evidence of a contrail and identify it as somesort of airplane. Most people take videos of UFO's and they appear to be only a few thousand to a few hundred feet away. Not tens of thousands of feet in the air.

[edit on 10/31/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
LOST SHAMAN :


what were the specs of your camera ? , at what range / atlttude was the jet ? what lens / zoom did you use , what resolution did you save the image at , what cropping have you done - etc etc

IMHO you have taken a picture designed to " proove " your point - and i am unimpressed

specificly the detail and focus of the foliage in the bottom left make me susspect - that you ` cheated ` or used a very poor / old camera

tommorow i will attempt to take a couple of pics and see how mine compare - bearing in mind that i will be attempting to demonstrate that a modern mid range consumer digital camera should be able to produce fat sharper images than you claim ]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
The chances to catch a UFO on film have never been better. At least as nice as the UFO images that helped launch the craze. As the months move on there will only be more cameras in the mainstream. I had to replace my last cell phone. My new budget LG camera has a 1.5mp camera capable of 640x480 images. And let me point out, this is not an American convenience. As a friend in Germany noted, many phone models are marketed/introduced in Europe before we get them here in the states.

The Lack of Big UFO Events
Even the Discovery Channel series on UFO's on Monday Nights still talks about incidents that occured in the late 1960-1970's. To date there are so few credible or compelling modern cases. I'm concluding that the Cold War Era was ripe for governmment/military experiments gone haywire. Since the Cold War went Warm, the amount of UFO accidents has all but dissapeared.


that have made it to high profile status because they are of more dubious origins.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I’m not sure I can buy into the ‘more is better’ argument…

More people are searching for a ‘cure for cancer’ than ever before too. They are well funded, well trained, have fancy machines that go Bing… but they haven’t found ‘the cure’…

Does that mean that there is no cure and they are wasting time and money, or does that mean they just haven’t found it yet?

The vast majority of these cameras and video recorders are in the hands of amateurs. They don’t have a clue what they are doing, just point and click… F-stop? what’s that? and so on…

As a result we get a lot of fuzzy pictures to complain about… millions of amateur photographers isn’t the answer/problem. One professional photographer with high end equipment set up on a tripod under perfect atmospheric conditions is what folks seem to want

That’s a lot to ask for….



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
LOST SHAMAN :


what were the specs of your camera ? , at what range / atlttude was the jet ? what lens / zoom did you use , what resolution did you save the image at , what cropping have you done - etc etc

IMHO you have taken a picture designed to " proove " your point - and i am unimpressed

specificly the detail and focus of the foliage in the bottom left make me susspect - that you ` cheated ` or used a very poor / old camera

tommorow i will attempt to take a couple of pics and see how mine compare - bearing in mind that i will be attempting to demonstrate that a modern mid range consumer digital camera should be able to produce fat sharper images than you claim ]



Vivitar ViviCam 3735 3.3 Mega Pixel 3X Optical and 2X digital Zoom

The Air Craft seemed to be at cruising altitude

Saving the Images on Max Res with only some cropping of the borders just to make the Images smaller and in no way have I altered the Image other than that.

I don't need to "cheat" to prove my point.

Do exactly like I did wait until you see an IFO and then run and get your average camera and take your best photos.

The foliage in the corner of the pic gives you a reference point in the picture and is out of focus because I have zoomed out to get the Air craft into focus.

Trust me I don't have to cheat to make my point you can do the same experiment and get similar results.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Tomastro - The notion that the fine images of UFOs were taken by seasoned photography vets in the 1950-1970's doesn't pan out. If anything people had a more arduous time with clunky unweildly cameras but were still able to get nice sized fairly decent photos of UFO's. Now in the UFO hey days of the Cold War, there were an abundance of photos with less cameras in the common civilian.

Now we have "By the numbers" a numerical increased opportunity to canvas broad metropolitan and suburban areas. That and these cameras are much less technically demanding to use than the ones that started and sustained the UFO phenomenon through the 1970's. Quality aside, more people should be able to see something they deem "unnatural" or "other wordly" and have the ability to capture that incident in greater numbers. It just isn't happening.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
nullster,

You keep saying basically the same thing , and yet I have never seen any evidence presented that what your saying is true.

We see new UFO pictures all the time , take the last Shuttle Mission for instance STS 114.

You might be able to make a case that UFO sightings and pictures have been less frequent. But I don't necessarily think that is actually the case, and I have not seen any evidence suggesting this to be true.

What UFO pictures are you specifically talking about ?

And are you talking about all UFO pictures including Hoaxes?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
lost_shaman - If I am saying the same thing it's because the common sense of the point hasn't made it through. As others have already duly noted and I continue to note, there has been a radical drop in qualified imagery in the past 10 years alone. Simply put the UFO movement would never have sustained itself with the blurry dot images we see today. Here's a key word. Flying Saucers. Not "flying blurry lights". It's getting so bad that people are submitting camera lens anomolies as proof of something other worldly.

Here's an open challenge. 1990-2005. Lets post all the credible (non debunked) UFO pictures we have. Then lets compare those to the classics. I think that will drive the message home one way or the other.

People who are skeptics are objective and have open minds. We have zero needs for UFO/Aliens to exist so we can remain truly skeptical. People who are believers are more zealous about what they see. They can see aliens in the most abstract photos or videos. They do require aliens/UFOs to exist. To them, there is nothing to prove. They are not objective so their motiations are always questioned.

The STS mission footage that NASA provides the public are anomolies until a group of qualified physicists proves otherwise. Armchair UFOologists are the only ones making a big deal of NASA footage. Now I say armchair UFOologists because none of these people are getting off their behinds and going to Universities or emailing any of the hundreds of Space centers around the world to get their takes on the phenomenon. These people prefer to make unsubstantiated accusations of a "Cover Up". "What Cover Up" I ask? NASA streams those videos and people then complain.


I ask anyone to tell me how many people are involved in the Space sciences on a Global level. I'm talking all over the world not just the Americans. Since these STS videos can be seen by the public on a global level, what are the worlds mass of space scientists making of these STS videos? The answer is.....Nothing.
Senseless and unfounded accusations of cover ups do not qualify as evidence. If people want answers maybe they should get off their behinds and away from their computers and do some serious research for once.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by nullster]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join