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.

 

There is no objective evidence of Aliens or UFO's

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   



The case isn't helped when your most famous supports are people like Erich Von Daniken and Stanton Friedman; who go to lengths of making up evidence to either make money or make their view believable.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by evanmontegarde]


You're going to need evidence to support that claim. People don't just accept random unfounded bullcrap here. Links now please.




posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
I think there is sufficient evidence for the existence of alien life, and it lies in sheer probability. The universe is large, and it would be quite scary if Earth was just a fluke.

I agree with the TC on his other points though. There's no solid evidence at all for extraterrestrial visitation. A few (Alright, thousands) of people who say they've seen grey aliens. Strange shapes in the sky (I've seen three UFOs myself in my short lifetime, or at the very least things I could not identify in the sky).

Much of the alien legend of modern times is nothing more than a mirror of previous beliefs. Many hope that soon humans will realize the error of our ways and our 'space brothers' will come down and save us; this is no different than legends of King Arthur rising from Avalon or [I'll take flak for this] Christ's return [that said I am a Christian, or something like it].

ATSGUY talks of the ancients affirming our theories of alien visitation; yet upon closer investigation most of that falls apart. Sure, you can interpret ancient writings to see their belief system as one of aliens, but the fact is that in most of these cultures there was little concept of "universe" and words like "heavens" and "space" would be indistinguishable.

The case isn't helped when your most famous supports are people like Erich Von Daniken and Stanton Friedman; who go to lengths of making up evidence to either make money or make their view believable.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by evanmontegarde]
Maybe our planet is the odd one of them all and we are the only "intelegent" species on it



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightworker12



The case isn't helped when your most famous supports are people like Erich Von Daniken and Stanton Friedman; who go to lengths of making up evidence to either make money or make their view believable.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by evanmontegarde]


You're going to need evidence to support that claim. People don't just accept random unfounded bullcrap here. Links now please.


I am not by any means saying that everyone believes those two. But, ask a random person who they think of when you say "ancient astronaut" and they will likely say Erich Von Daniken. There's a reason the UFO community is the laughingstock of "real" science. Stanton Friedman seems to believe anything that supports the idea that we're being visited by aliens; the MJ-12 documents (anyone with a clear mind can look at the evidence itself and see they're fakes) are an example.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I think we are straying from the topic here. The most common statement of all on these forums is that this is a "big universe, and we're arrogant if we think we're the only intelligent life." Alright, already! We've heard it all before. Thanks so much for reminding us that this is #1 again.

The issue is really that pesky Speed of Light. That's a proven theory, proven experimentally time and time again. Yes I know some lab has reported they broke the speed of light using some sort of particle. That's nice, but it is a report of one experiment. It does not constitute a proven theory. To become a proven thory it has to be replicated by others many many times until there is no doubt as to its validity. See The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene for more details. If you are of the nuts & bolts persuasion, you are going to have to get around the Speed of Light as a built in limit in order to give our space brothers the ability to get here from afar. Invoking worm holes is strictly speculation backed up by little to nothing. Feel free to speculate, of course, but that doesn't prove anything.

If you are of the inter-dimensional persuasion, you have a lot of theory to explain before you can invoke it. And, no, invoking string theory and M-theory won't help you. The dimensions they are talking about are tiny. Now, membranes might, but once again, you're beyond the cutting edge of physics research here and into speculation. The point is that you can't just reject the proven theories that have been put forth by the world body of physicists. You must accommodate what they have discovered about the nature of the cosmos. If you refuse to do that because you think you know ever so much better than they, then you have stepped over a line from science to religion. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, but you have to recognize that this is where you have wound up, in a faith-based system of belief that does not have scientific backing.

I believe (and here is my faith showing) that all is explainable ultimately. We will get there; we're just not there yet. But given the vagaries and subtlties of human consciousness, the fact that Uncle Charlie saw an ET, or that you did, is really in the realm of anecdotal evidence. And the fact that George Adamski climbed aboard a flying saucer is a matter of fantasy.

[edit on 9/9/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There is objective evidence that supports ufology. There's more evidence for U.F.O.'s than there is for black holes, virtual particles, dark matter and dark energy. These things are easily accepted because they don't challenge ones pre-existing belief system.

There's both direct and circumstantial evidence that supports ufology. Physics also supports ufology.

You have direct evidence from eyewitness accounts from pilots, police officers, Presidents, high ranking government officials and more. These eyewitness accounts are concrete evidence that U.F.O.'s exist.

In order to discount all these eyewitness accounts, you would have to impeach the character of each witness and show that they are prone to make up stories out of the blue. In court eyewitness testimony is paramount and then it's backed up by circumstantial evidence. With ufology you have both.

You have circumstantial evidence with cave paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and video. There isn't any reasonable doubt that U.F.O's exist.

You also have physics with Parallel universes and the multiverse. We know there's a myriad of energy states and it doesn't make sense to say we are the only energy state that can produce life.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
And the fact that George Adamski climbed aboard a flying saucer is a matter of fantasy.

[edit on 9/9/2007 by schuyler]


You say that about anyone on this board who has had an alien experience(I.E. sleeper). Fact is, only they know what really happened. It's easy to say they're a fantasist, because what they've experienced is beyond the scope of your reality.

If you had experienced the same thing, would you not be mocked as well?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Actually, black holes and dark matter and such are supported by arguably the best evidence of all - pure mathematics. Although it's a little more complex than "2+2 = 4".

schulyer, I actually just read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" last week and it was fantastically interesting. I plan on picking up "The Elegant Universe" sometime soon.

I have no doubt that thousands of people have seen UFOs. Count me as one of them. But that does not mean they've seen alien spacecraft. What exactly do you mean by parallel universes and multiverse? Right now that's just a quirk in quantum physics and string theory and other higher physics, just one possibility that explains certain facets of each. It doesn't really have a lot to do with aliens or evidence for or against them.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
There's zero, I say ZERO direct evidence for black holes, virtual particles, dark matter or dark energy. Physicist don't even know what dark matter and dark energy consist of.

There's direct evidence for ufology. Thousands of credible eyewitness accounts. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that this kind of direct evidence would secure a conviction.

There is no reasonable doubt that u.f.o.'s exist. ZERO.

Again, we know that parallel universes exist. Just look at things like Shor's algorithm and you don't even have to go that far, you can stop with the double slit experiment. You should read David Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality.

Dr. Michio Kaku even talks about type 1,2 and 3 universes. There's a myriad of probable energy states. this is what people don't understand. We are just one potential reality out of a myriad of potential realities. The problem is that people think we are an objective reality. Are exact universe could be formed again through a quantum fluctuation in the bulk. It's like Dr. Kaku said, constant creation occurs in a sea of nirvana. We are blinded by being isolated in our pocket universe. It's obvious that other beings exist.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
It's quite true that the composition of dark energy and dark matter is unknown, but it's also clear that something has to fill in that 95% of space. Either that, or our mathematics are just wrong.

I find it interesting that you accept the theory of multiple universes shown by the double slit experiment but reject the notion of black holes when they have been mathematically 'proven' and (indirectly, since they're not visible to light by definition) observed. The idea that each probability along an electron wave exists in a parallel universe is not the only solution to that problem; it's just one suggested one.

And I'm still not seeing how, even if there are parallel universes to our own where the position of a single electron differs, that provides any evidence for or against the ET theory.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightworker12



The case isn't helped when your most famous supports are people like Erich Von Daniken and Stanton Friedman; who go to lengths of making up evidence to either make money or make their view believable.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by evanmontegarde]


You're going to need evidence to support that claim. People don't just accept random unfounded bullcrap here. Links now please.


Since when?!?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have pages and pages of some of the most outlandish claims made on this forum, and anyone who expresses sincere doubt or asks for the smallest amount of objective, verifiable evidence is blasted by the blind believers crowd. Please don't refute that, I could lit link after link to specific post after post that backs my claim up.

Simple, there IS NO OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE evidence of crap, and no one knows for sure about anything. Everything is speculation, and it's a lot of fun to do so. There are those that take it too far and maybe are a bit deluded, and it's that large portion of the believer crowd that gives someone who really is interested in ufo's a bad name. Seriously, Ufology is a laughing joke, just browse 50% of the threads on this very forum and you will find out why.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Again, there's objective evidence that U.F.O.'s exist. You would have to impeach the character of every eyewitness in order to say evidence doesn't exist. You would also have to professionaly debunk every photo or video with 2 or 3 experts drawing the same conclusions on each piece of evidence.

Again, U.F.O.'s exist beyond any reasonable doubt.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
UFOs do exist. Think about what UFO stands for - Unidentified Flying Object. People see things every day in the sky they can't identify.

There's no evidence for alien visitation. Period. Testimony of claimed abductees is all we have. It's awfully convenient how their stories follow the science of the time - When Venus is shown as a hostile environment, aliens are suddenly from another solar system entirely. When one person starts seeing "flying saucers", suddenly everyone is...even though Kenneth Arnold didn't see any flying saucers, but V-shaped craft. Johnny reads the headline "FLYING SAUCERS SPOTTED" and suddenly he sees them too. An abductee is given an alien book that could prove without a doubt the truth of her story...And then she loses it. Huh?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I don't reject the notion of black holes. My point is there's more evidence that supports ufology then there is for black holes. I accept black holes and I think Hawking's work in this area is fascinating.

Like Leonard Susskind says, some form of the multiverse is unavoidable. It could be many worlds, many minds or something else. I know people want to try and get around randomness but they can't. It's like the bulk consist of a myriad of potential realities that become observed when a quantum fluctuation occurs. It stands to reason that some of these potential realities are more advanced than we are and they can traverse throughout our bubble universe.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Simple, there IS NO OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE evidence of crap, and no one knows for sure about anything. Everything is speculation, and it's a lot of fun to do so. There are those that take it too far and maybe are a bit deluded, and it's that large portion of the believer crowd that gives someone who really is interested in ufo's a bad name. Seriously, Ufology is a laughing joke, just browse 50% of the threads on this very forum and you will find out why.


You say these people discredit ufology, but what have you offered ufology? Have you ever seen a UFO? Had a strange experience? Anything? Where's your evidence?

Bottom line is, people experience things that they cannot explain through our teachings here on Earth.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, there's objective evidence that U.F.O.'s exist. You would have to impeach the character of every eyewitness in order to say evidence doesn't exist. You would also have to professionaly debunk every photo or video with 2 or 3 experts drawing the same conclusions on each piece of evidence.

Again, U.F.O.'s exist beyond any reasonable doubt.


Unidentified Flying Objects sure. Alien spacecraft UFO's? No objective evidence what so ever. Faith, Speculation and Fantasy is all that drives the myth of Aliens and Alien Space Craft. For some, belief inn aliens is a religion.

I would love for thereto be some aliens and even god but they are both the same thing. Except wars are not fought over aliens heh.



[edit on 9-9-2007 by Xeven]



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
UFOs do exist. Think about what UFO stands for - Unidentified Flying Object. People see things every day in the sky they can't identify.

There's no evidence for alien visitation. Period. Testimony of claimed abductees is all we have. It's awfully convenient how their stories follow the science of the time - When Venus is shown as a hostile environment, aliens are suddenly from another solar system entirely. When one person starts seeing "flying saucers", suddenly everyone is...even though Kenneth Arnold didn't see any flying saucers, but V-shaped craft. Johnny reads the headline "FLYING SAUCERS SPOTTED" and suddenly he sees them too. An abductee is given an alien book that could prove without a doubt the truth of her story...And then she loses it. Huh?


This is the skeptics mistake. They substitute their opinion for eyewitness testimony. I will give you an example:

Former Governor of Arizona and ex pilot saw the craft fly over his head along with many other people. Now, should I believe the Governor or the opinion of the skeptic?

The skeptic actually gives more weight to their opinion than the eyewitness testimony. This is backwards logic and only a pre-existing belief can offer something so illogical.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Ok. So Mr. Governor saw a UFO. Now why does it have to be piloted by aliens from another galaxy, dimension, or whatever you want to be believe?

I've seen UFOs. But I didn't jump to the conclusion that aliens were flying above me, why would I when my only evidence was something I saw in the sky?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
There is absolutely no more evidence for alien visitation to earth than there is proof of god. All there is are blurry videos and pictures. People who report abductions probably need Prozac and some therapy in their lives. They too have 0 proof.....


you should tell this to Former Canadian Prime Minister, Col. Philip j. Corso (Former Pentagon Official), Jim Marrs, Stanton Friedman etc, i could fill the page with important people who worked for the government or hold high level positions in science who believe otherwise. Do you simply think of them as crazy?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by luis9343

Originally posted by Xeven
There is absolutely no more evidence for alien visitation to earth than there is proof of god. All there is are blurry videos and pictures. People who report abductions probably need Prozac and some therapy in their lives. They too have 0 proof.....


you should tell this to Former Canadian Prime Minister, Col. Philip j. Corso (Former Pentagon Official), Jim Marrs, Stanton Friedman etc, i could fill the page with important people who worked for the government or hold high level positions in science who believe otherwise. Do you simply think of them as crazy?


Great point,

This is the skeptics logic. There opinion is given more weight than eyewitness testimony. This is because they are protecting a pre-existing belief and it has nothing to do with logic. This actually turns logic on it's head.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
Ok. So Mr. Governor saw a UFO. Now why does it have to be piloted by aliens from another galaxy, dimension, or whatever you want to be believe?

I've seen UFOs. But I didn't jump to the conclusion that aliens were flying above me, why would I when my only evidence was something I saw in the sky?


The Governor said it was a huge craft that flew silently over his head. He's a pilot that's trained to know what's in the sky and he believes it to be alien. Now why should I give more weight to a skeptics opinion over the eyewitness account of the Governor?

You also have to ask did other people see the same the same thing. Many people did. This is not an account in isolation. You have many eyewitness accounts from pilots, police officers, people in the military and more. You add in the circumstantial evidence from cave paintings, ancient manuscripts, paintings, pictures and video and it's a no brainer.

U.F.O.'s exist beyond any reasonable doubt.







 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join