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.

 

Ten Alien Encounters Debunked [Space.com]

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
www.space.com...

Ten Alien Encounters Debunked [Space.com]

What do u think?




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Pretty much a joke in my opinion.

I have only read the first two and so far, they aren't "debunking" anything. They are only giving an opinion on why they think these things happened, and why they think people are crazy for thinking that aliens could have been involved.

Cattle Mutilation:

Cows have been preyed upon by scavengers forever.... therefore, aliens are not involved. I mean, that is some hard hitting investigation.

Pyramids:
The only mystery is why people think that aliens were involved. National Geographic ran an article on how they *think they could have been made.


Kind of a ridiculous article. I don't necessarily believe that aliens are involved in any of these cases, but the arguements that they are making are hardly any more legitimate than the alien theory.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
i also think they are a joke.

but u know, the general public will believe scientist, and sites like these,
no matter how stupid their argument is.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Drzava]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Here is a good example of some solid debunking:

FTA
"The phrase "flying saucer," so familiar to Americans and UFO buffs, is the result of a reporter’s error. After interviewing Arnold about his sighting, a reporter from the Eastern Oregonian newspaper reported that Arnold saw round, aerial objects (in fact he said they were "crescent shaped"). Arnold stated that the objects "flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water"—not that what he saw resembled an actual saucer. Yet that "saucer" interpretation stuck, prompting many eyewitnesses to repeat (and hoaxers to duplicate) Arnold’s nonexistent description. This strongly shows the role of suggestion in UFO sightings; as skeptic Marty Kottmeyer asks, "Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to [the reporter’s] mistake?" "

I had no idea that a guy from eastern Oregon invented the flying saucer. No flying saucer was ever seen or reported of before this guy??? His source is the skeptics dictionary. The article mentioned, aparantly was written in 1947.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Here is a good example of some solid debunking:
I had no idea that a guy from eastern Oregon invented the flying saucer. No flying saucer was ever seen or reported of before this guy???


Yes, they were. There are many reports of unknown aerial ships (UFO's) previous to 1947 or Kenneth Arnold sighting. Many are from the XIX century, many others from WWII (the famouse foo-fighters), and others are even described in medieval documents or paintings.

The thing is that, most of what I consider very credible sighting are not even of the "flying saucer" category. Shape has nothing to do with the credibility or existance of the phenomenom.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Some of his observations are legit but some not, IMO. Especially cattle mutilations and crop circles. If I remmeber correctly, noone so far, has been 'caught' or proven to able to make such perfect shapes in sucha short time.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
debunking at it's best.

all sorts of geometric shapes have been observed and in many military documents describing UFO's they mention that they are saucer shaped, well, I guess the military hoaxes now huh?

Also, how was Project Mogul confused with Project Highdive? why were bodies even REPORTED if project highdive wasn't until the 1950s?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
What do I think? I think easy explanations are easy to come by. Does it "debunk" anything? Nope.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The REALLY annoying construction of the article made reading this piece of fluff doubly annoying.

Not worth the time to read.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Ah! Can't believe I clicked on that link again, boosting the hit counter so the moron who wasted internet space on that crap actually thinks his site is popular.

This site has already been discussed btw, here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I was okay until Number 7 came along. Okay so no one knows much what is happening at Groom Lake? Uh okay, so how can it officially be debunked if you don't even know what is going on in there. What foolish attempt at logic. Oh and I don't know much about the Roswell incident, though I've seen some interesting evidence for the alien scenario, but the whole thing is still inconclusive when you factor in that the government lied quite a few times already.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by _EyesOpen_
Ah! Can't believe I clicked on that link again, boosting the hit counter so the moron who wasted internet space on that crap actually thinks his site is popular.

This site has already been discussed btw, here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Agree 100%. Though I only signed up to ATS a few weeks ago, so wasn't aware of the previous thread on this subject, the tag line

'Presented by Skeptical Inquirer'

tells you straight away it's going to be garbage. The 'Skeptical Inquirer' is neither skeptical, in the true 'dispassionate, analytical & open-minded' meaning of the word, nor is it interested in inquiry. They just push their hard-line debunking belief system, carry out zero research and disregard all the evidence which inconveniently contradicts the ridiculous 'explanations' they propagate. Their main spokesman is a big fave with the MSM. Of course.

Stay smug & comfortable in your ignorance, peoples. Read 'The Skeptical Inquirer'.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drzava
i also think they are a joke.

but u know, the general public will believe scientist, and sites like these,
no matter how stupid their argument is.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Drzava]


That is because the explainations given by "believers" are generally more stupid and less educated.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I'm reasonably skeptical, but I found the majority of those explanations poor.

We don't know how the top courses of the pyramids were built. However, a pyramid composed of blocks is not impossible for humans. If the pyramid was constructed of one solid piece of anything (stone, metal, etc.) then -that- would be pretty convincing of non-human origin.

Cattle mutilations are probably perpetuated by the ranchers to allow them to obtain recompense for the damaged animals.

In addition the format of the site is annoying. There need to be presented in one window so you can easily scan them.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Please add to existing thread

Top 10 Myths


Thread Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join