It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


No proof means no proof.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:34 PM
All these crashed craft....eyewitnesses,pictures,list goes on and it all always get debunked....why????Whynot one shred of proof???

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:38 PM
Furthering the ability to create photos that look extremely real and convincing unfortunately throw off the ufo phenomenon. I, as a believer sometimes believe a photo is so real but then it turns out to be debunked and fake! there are some genuine photographs that are for real. Unfortunately there are people that like to make fake photos and get people all startled up. I think the HARD ufo evidence was the phoenix lights because many people saw it and it got video taped.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:45 PM
Yeah i remember that one.Said they were flares from a10s or f16s i think. what a joke.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:46 PM
Just for fun, would you debunk the Travis Walton case please.


posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:48 PM
So called fire in the sky?Nope i wouldnt....I believe in ufos aliens abductions.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:22 PM
Fire in the sky right? i believe in that. you can't debunk something like that, nobody can get into the heads of those men that got abducted.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:24 PM
Lack of definite proof doesn't mean lack of existence
There is, I'm sure, some shreds of truth among all the BS we hear on ATS, but as others have said, the advent of the Internet and imaging software has increased the volume of garbage more than the volume of truth. Somewhere in the middle you have to make decisions for yourself until something more concrete is available.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by kattraxx
Just for fun, would you debunk the Travis Walton case please.


Follow the money


"Ground Saucer Watch," a pro-UFO organization, was the very first UFO organization on the scene of the Walton "abduction". In cooperation with Dr. J. Allen Hynek of CUFOS, Dr. Lester Stewart of GSW began to interview the Walton family while Travis was still "missing." They immediately smelled a hoax. These are their conclusions, without any changes - RS.

1. Walton never boarded the UFO. This fact is supported by the six witnesses and the polygraph test results. [3]

2. The entire Walton family has had a continual UFO history. The Walton boys have reported observing 10 to 15 separate UFO sightings (very high).

3. When Duane was questioned about his brother's disappearance, he stated that "Travis will be found, that UFO's are friendly." GSW countered, "How do you know Travis will be found?" Duane said "I have a feeling, a strong feeling." GSW asked "If the UFO 'captors' are going to return Travis, will you have a camera to record this great occurrence?" Duane, "No, if I have a camera 'they' will not return."

4. The Walton's mother showed no outward emotion over the 'loss' of Travis. She said that UFO's will not harm her son, he will be returned and that UFO's have been seen by her family many times.

5. The Walton's refused any outside scientific help or anyone who logically doubted the abduction portion of the story.

6. The media and GSW was fair to the witnesses. However, when the story started to 'fall apart' the Waltons would only talk to people who did not doubt the abduction story.

7. APRO became involved and criticized both GSW and Dr. Hynek for taking a negative position on the encounter.

8. The Waltons 'sold' their story to the National Enquirer and the story was completely twisted from the truth.

1. In other words, James Harder was using hypnosis to lead Travis Walton into "remembering" a proper UFO abduction story. UFOlogists cite the apparent consistencies of these stories as proof that they are supposedly authentic! But here we glimpse the real reason behind the apparent similarities: Harder rehearsed Walton's story over and over again until the latter was ready to face the press and tell a convincing story.

2. The very existence of this polygraph session with John J. McCarthy was kept secret by the National Enquirer and by APRO, with McCarthy ordered never to speak about it. The cover-up was revealed by Philip J. Klass in June, 1976. The details of the Walton hoax, and its associated cover-up, can be found in chapters 18-23 of Klass' book UFOs The Public Deceived (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1983).

3. Apparently GSW thought that in order to have a "genuine" UFO abduction, the UFO would have to land, and pick up its passenger.

You should read the whole article.

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by alienstar
All these crashed craft....eyewitnesses,pictures,list goes on and it all always get debunked....why????Whynot one shred of proof???

I don't know. What do you think about it? What would acceptable proof be to you?

As I see it, no proof doesn't mean no possibility. Just it means the proof is not acceptable for you.

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by alienstar
All these crashed craft....eyewitnesses,pictures,list goes on and it all always get debunked....why????Whynot one shred of proof???

I enjoy reading intelligent debunking of hoaxes. I enjoy reading verbose explanations that cut right THROUGH my commonly held theories, both ways... for and against alien life, secrecy, mythology.. etc..
It helps me to NOT "believe" in things too long.. cause me to not get hung up on one specific idea, in order for that idea to grow with further thoughts, or decrease with convincingly contrary thought.

Numerous times on this board, I've seen you interject into expansive discussions on the subject of UFOs or Aliens these dauntingly wooden one-liners akin to "But there's no PROOF I WANT PROOF and you're ALL WRONG until there's something completely concrete that I can approve of as PROOF"

Stroll with me alongside this river of your discontent, for a time, and I shall, through tremendous patience, point out the fish of thought which struggle vehemently upstream against your currency of reality....

Do you believe most of what you see on TV? Or do you need to be there as a first hand observer in order to believe that it actually has happened in this reality that you share with the other people on earth?

If you weren't there or within sight of the city, or haven't visited ground zero since then, you believed 9/11 happened right?
but the only "proof" that you have, that it happened is images, and word of mouth accounts of it.

And ask yourself.. what IS "proof" .. is proof just an "image" for you?

I mean.. if a news organization that does not, in any way, shape or form, manipulate it's viewership, take orders from it's sponsors, and is completely honest 100%... does a complete report on television, that the US gov has disclosed the reality of "Aliens" and you see them shaking hands with dignitaries.. and you see their craft on tv etc..

and a government that never has lied 1% at all, and is directly and transparently controlled by ALL the people it serves, corroborates an backs up this story...

do you believe it then?


those "images" which would be your proof.. are only colorized pixels in a mosaic form .. a "screen" that broadcasts specific images into your mind that you then .. once they are within your mind.. deem as rationally acceptable to your reality or not.

which others of your five sense would you need to "agree" that this is real or not?

would you need to visit the actual alien or spaceship yourself?

would you need to smell it? hear it up close? and feel it's skin and touch the hull of the craft?

these "affirmations" of reality.. of "proof" when scrutinized.. are only electrical impulses processed by your brain.. from a source outside of your brain.

do we need to form a line as long as the population on earth waiting to touch and feel the alien? to touch and smell the craft?

in order to believe that it is "real"?

so it all comes down to.. who do you trust?
because since this "7 billion man long line" is NOT going to happen...
you're going to have to rely on OTHER PEOPLE TELLING YOU WHAT IS REAL.
and most likely.. you're NOT going to be there in person when this "proof" you desire is hypothetically delivered.

so you're going to see and hear a television broadcast... stating that it is real.
and that will be your "proof".

hopefully, for you, this broadcast will be made by someone you TRUST.. someone that you have no suspicion of lying to you.. for ulterior means, such as money... because they've NEVER done that sort of manipulative thing in their broadcast career before.

there are plenty of accounts of this phenomena occurring around us.
plenty of photos and first hand accounts from people that have nothing to gain, other than shame and disrespect.

use your brain...

and deductive reasoning.
hopefully you can use your judgement of character and see into the eyes of people reporting these claims and feel out that what they witnessed...
and on a side note.. just sit back and fathom the colossal expanse of space .. and likelihood of metabolic processes falling into order, rising to advanced nervous systems..on places other than Earth.. just for fun because it's a beautiful thought.

this will help you accumulate a more healthy ability to define what you decide is reality.

I hope that for your own sake, your mindset on this entire phenomena is just an act, because I don't think people that process logic the way you do, stand a chance in hell in the new type of world we're going to be entering into in the coming decades.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by prevenge]

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:35 AM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:19 AM

Originally posted by alienstar
All these crashed craft....eyewitnesses,pictures,list goes on and it all always get debunked....why????Whynot one shred of proof???

I have to do a report about ufos for my country military/defence and i still can't find a proof of ET origin of ufos, despite I can access military documents of my country.

new topics

top topics


log in