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.

 

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Hello everyone. Where is the physical evidence of UFOs? I am not interested in sitings or stories. Just some good hard evidence that could proove that there is something to it. Lets see it if its out there. Goodday!




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
well i think theres a fair bit of evidence that the ufo phenomenon is real- by that i mean there are things people see in the sky that they cant identify.

there is no irrefutable concrete evidence that we are being visited by extra terrestrials.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
And here is the problem: You just posted on a forum requesting physical proof. Care to give us your home address so one could give it to you if found?


I have read quite a bit about debris, landing marks, abductee marks/scars and so on but its never any physical proof because that's all I've done, read about it.

We cant prove anything to you.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by merka]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Here is one thing I read on proof of anything not of this planet.

Everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff.

According to the physicists’ standard model, pretty much everything we can see in the universe is made from the same basic building blocks: elementary particles with names like quark, lepton and gluon. From raindrops to galaxies, it’s all the same stuff.

So when supposed ET/UFO debris is presented for varification - - it is labeled as being made of Earth material.

I saw a UFO - a flying saucer - broad daylight - no clouds. Can't prove it.

Exactly how is one supposed to prove existence of ETs/UFOs - - - short of them landing and introducing themselves?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Here is one thing I read on proof of anything not of this planet.

Everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff.

According to the physicists’ standard model, pretty much everything we can see in the universe is made from the same basic building blocks: elementary particles with names like quark, lepton and gluon. From raindrops to galaxies, it’s all the same stuff.

So when supposed ET/UFO debris is presented for varification - - it is labeled as being made of Earth material.

I saw a UFO - a flying saucer - broad daylight - no clouds. Can't prove it.

Exactly how is one supposed to prove existence of ETs/UFOs - - - short of them landing and introducing themselves?


That's how many of us get started. We see something really weird that we can never provide anything more than our eyewitness testimony for. You want more than that. At some point you may just have to admit that you may never resolve just what it is you personally experienced.

A great deal has been said and written about crash retrievals, but nothing solid has materialized.

Here's my modest proposal: these things don't crash. They may leave physical traces, but no materials that are unambiguously extraterrestrial. Alternate explanations for the physical traces are possible, or the possible sources of contamination negate any scientific value.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The closest thing I have seen is the alleged Roswell piece and the supposed alien implants. I don't know if they have been debunked though.

Skip to about 14:30 in this video:




Anyone have more info on these pieces?

[edit on 14-2-2007 by MiahX]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dobsonion2
Hello everyone. Where is the physical evidence of UFOs? I am not interested in sitings or stories. Just some good hard evidence that could proove that there is something to it. Lets see it if its out there. Goodday!


Do a search on "Physical trace cases," or "Dr. Roger Leir".



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
What do you mean extraordinary claims? How are U.F.O.'s extraordinary claims? If you said this 4,000 years ago, then you may have a point. Right now we have mountains of direct and circumstantial evidence that supports ufology. From cave paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and videos to eyewitness accounts from Presidents, military, police officer, high ranking government officials, pilots and more. At this point ufology can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There's no alternative explanation for all these things within reason. This is why skeptics have to debate these things outside of reason so that any unreasonable answer will suffice. U.F.O.'s have to be kept as extraordinary or in the realm of mythology because ufology can't be debated or debunked in the context of reason. All you have on the opposite side of the debate is U.F.O.'s don't exist because I don't "believe" it. A picture or video can be debunked but the whole of ufology can't be debunked. There's no other reasonable explanation for the mountains of evidence that supports ufology. Weather balloons and flashing lights just doesn't cut it. In order to debunk ufology you would have to give more weight to heresay over direct evidence. This would be people saying that these people didn't see U.F.O.'s because they don't think they did. This doesn't make sense. I remember a skeptic on Larry King said on a show about the paranormal, the person didn't see what they thought they saw. Larry King asked her, how could you know what they saw? She was stumped by Larry King. It's just too much direct and circumstantial evidence that suppports ufology that turns the extraordinary claim on it's head. This would apply if I said there were pink elephants flying in the forest. That's an extraordinary claim and would require evidence to back the claim. Ufology has mountains of evidence to look at and the extraordinary claim doesn't apply.

Let me pose a question to the original poster. Can you show me physical evidence of a black hole? There's more evidence that supports ufology than there is for black holes and I bet if you were to poll the country on black holes an overwhelming majority would say they exist. If ufology was a theory in physics it would get overwhelming support. Ufology talks about other intelligent life forms and that clashes with peoples belief system and at that point the evidence doesn't matter to them. They "believe" U.F.O.'s don't exist and something like evidence will not make any difference.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by polomontana]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unplugged

Originally posted by dobsonion2
Hello everyone. Where is the physical evidence of UFOs? I am not interested in sitings or stories. Just some good hard evidence that could proove that there is something to it. Lets see it if its out there. Goodday!


Do a search on "Physical trace cases," or "Dr. Roger Leir".


LIER used to work FOR Derrel Sims. I'd consult SIMS on implants. THAT is the expert.

FYI

SPout



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
... polomontana pretty much sums it up imo. Well said.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
thanks for your opinion,but thats all it is. i find it lacking any hard evidence. the thread is not open for debate. if you have something worthwhile to look at, lets see it. if not dont respond. good day!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana


Let me pose a question to the original poster. Can you show me physical evidence of a black hole? There's more evidence that supports ufology than there is for black holes and I bet if you were to poll the country on black holes an overwhelming majority would say they exist. If ufology was a theory in physics it would get overwhelming support. Ufology talks about other intelligent life forms and that clashes with peoples belief system and at that point the evidence doesn't matter to them. They "believe" U.F.O.'s don't exist and something like evidence will not make any difference.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by polomontana]


I'm not the OP, but I think I can assure you that ALL the evidence for Black holes is physical. There is also a great deal of it. The burden of proof is now squarely on those who would claim that black holes don't exist (and I'm not sure there are any left in that camp). This evidence is high quality, repeatable, peer reviewed, and makes sense in the larger context of what is known about physics and astronomy. I don't think the UFO evidence meets the same standard, nor would I expect it to.

Physical evidence isn't just stuff you can scoop up and put in a test tube. Otherwise, we'd have to make the absurd statement that there is no physical evidence for nearly all of our astronomical knowledge.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'm completely over the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" line n general. How about - "extraordinary claims require SOME evidence, if you expect to be believed. I mean throw me a bone here, willya?"

And having said that, I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone can deny the existence of UFOs. How is that possible? Now you can debate, argue, speculate about their origins, what they are, why they're here, but if you knew that they wouldn't be UFOs then, would they? They'd be FOs.

The existence of UFOs is not an extraordinary claim, by any reasonable understanding. Stating you know what they are, is.

[/rant off]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jemblem62


That one's been thoroughly debunked. It's abundantly clear that those are heavily enhanced imaging artifacts.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by jemblem62


That one's been thoroughly debunked. It's abundantly clear that those are heavily enhanced imaging artifacts.


..... who debunked it, what exactly is a "heavily enhanced imaging artifact"? im sure theres an article on this if what your saying is true. and please dont give me a nasa link lol they said that other ufo was an ice particle even though a physicist and and a 20 yr image analyst said it wasnt



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jemblem62..... who debunked it, what exactly is a "heavily enhanced imaging artifact"? im sure theres an article on this if what your saying is true. and please dont give me a nasa link lol they said that other ufo was an ice particle even though a physicist and and a 20 yr image analyst said it wasnt


Maybe if we had a link to go by, then we could investigate the story better.

What newspaper did the article appear in and where did you get the pic of it??

``````````````````````````
Edit to add...




How To Make Your Own UFO









Look familiar?

For details on how this was produced, see the link above.

Maybe with that out of the way, we can return to the topic.



[edit on 28/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
www.msnbc.msn.com... haha yeah i was gonna post the article.... i feel stupid for believing in newspapers, not . there really isnt any evidence to be honest. its like a 757 passing over my head and someone asking me if i had evidence of it


[edit on 28-2-2007 by jemblem62]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deleted entire quote of post above

[edit on 28/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dobsonion2
Hello everyone. Where is the physical evidence of UFOs? I am not interested in sitings or stories. Just some good hard evidence that could proove that there is something to it. Lets see it if its out there. Goodday!


I sincerely hope that someone will post some hard evidence, as you say, but when that happens it''ll be the most significant thing to ever happen.

Maybe it happened in the past and the memories of it faded over time, changing into something akin to a religious experience.

If it happened tonight...beyond any reasonable doubt and viewed by millions (like a thousand O'Hare reports all at once), human kind would change overnight and nothing would ever be the same again.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
What about the ancient drawings of the Mayans, Egytions and other ancient artifacts. Did they just imagine the flying disk and space men? If so, wouldn't that be the ultimate hoax? They didn't have the ability to take pictures or video tape their experiences. Evidence does go back along way but the only question is why would they lie and draw pictures and writings about ufo's? I sometimes wonder if all the planets that we know of look like they do in pictures. Maybe they look completely different and have been airbrushed redone or something like that. How do we know? Has anyone seen the planets in real life with their own eyes?




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join