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.


Has the bar for "proof" been made unreachable?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by djerwulfe

"Physical UFO evidence, when it can be obtained is USUALLY limited to unusual alloys with uncertain and irrational origins. Some of these "lumps" would be very expensive to manufacture and often have no known commercial application. Hoaxers would have to have access to top-notch synthesis labs and money."

"Anomalous radiation. There are often readings of mysteriously elevated radiation or eloctromagnetic-radio levels. More often than not, detected in locations without any reasonable source. These reading have been reported by objective techicians who sometimes were wholly unaware of the nature or purpose of his or her surveying."

Can you say irrefutably that these lumps are from UFOs? Are these radiation and electromagnetic readings the results of UFOs? I am not sure you can state for certain that these things are connected. If you could prove beyond a doubt that the lumps came from a UFO then you'd have something? Or am I misreading your post? Nicely written post by the way. I appreciate the logical approach.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by hammanderr]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

Sure seems that way. I will admit to being illiterate as far as photo editing and cgi go, but I see this one allegation over and over again.

"The image says photoshop"

Of course it does. I know when I save a picture from my camera on to my pc, my photo editor tags the image in it's format when I save it. It also keeps it on file as modified on "date', even though I do nothing to modify it. This is very weak debunking tactic. Most users would not know how to post raw images and I don't know if you even can on this site.

So then you get dozens of post going back and forth on the photoshop thingee. I think the moderators need to start adressing those that bring up the same point numerous times in the same thread. It makes the threads almost unreadable.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by hammanderr

I always use this example: In 1503 Copernicus overturns the Ptolemic model of the earth-centered solar system. His idea is acknowleged by the "scientists" of the day, (and probably accepted in the mathematic circles), but Copernicus is told to keep his studies that defy church doctrine or official stances to himself. He agrees and little more is said until after he is dead.
Eneter the Copernicans. This group of basically brilliant progressive students were vocal about Copernicus' ideas and so many of them were excecuted by the Church for heresy.

**NOTE: It wasn't until 1835, long after the Copernican Model was fully accepted in universities and institutions, was taught in school, was the basis for considerably more "advanced" science, was no longer an issue or area of inquiry that the Church officially recognized the Copernican Solar System. So from 1503 to 1835, the Church knew the truth, but refused to endorse truth for 300 years, until people actually forgot that they didn't accept the truth officially.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:33 PM
I think it all comes back to the true skepticism versus pseudo-skepticism issue. Somewhere along the line, many people seem to have taken the position that skepticism is a lack of belief. In reality, skepticism entails refraining from accepting something as fact without proof, while also refraining from making their own assertions (such as something being CGI, being a hoax, etc.) without proof as well. It's pseudo-skeptics that make assertions of their own without proof, predicated upon their own disbelief.

Personally, I consider myself a skeptic. I don't know if something is a hoax or a fake, and as such, won't make any assertions with regard to its validity. Something could be genuine, or it might not be. I don't know, one way or another. I think a lot of this issue has to do with having the courage to admit that we don't know everything. As humans, at least in most societies that I've found, we don't like not knowing, or being seen as not knowing. We like to have a ready answer for every question or situation. If we can't prove something is real, we don't like it to remain a question mark, so we assert that it's fake.

It can be galling to have to say, "I don't know," so instead we make assertions. I don't agree with doing that, but between that and cognitive dissonance, I think that's how it happens.

[edit on 6/28/2008 by AceWombat04]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:39 PM
i think there are many gov agents on here that create lies and discredibility therefore people are persuaded to believe them

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by AceWombat04

Exactly, every time a thread like this pops up I say to myself, here we go, people are confusing the true meaning of the word "skeptic" with a "flamer" or rude idiot....

skep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skep-tik]
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

People are confusing the words "skeptic" and "debunker" with being a "flamer" and using them with a nefarious connotation.

de·bunk /dɪˈbʌŋk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-buhngk]
–verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

There's nothing wrong with being EITHER of these things. Yet people on ATS, through their own ignorance of the English language I am thinking, are confusing them with the term that also flies around this site every 5 seconds..."disinfo-agent"

[edit on 28-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by hammanderr

Certainly not saying there is defined relationship. Correlational, perhaps. However, what can be said in many instances is that there was a high energy event in space time. Even if that means some very strange and resourceful hoaxer did something weird. ( i...dea from Vallee,' for what it's worth..)

The UFO as causative element that fails the criteria of being "real' is more of an excersise in Science vs the highly improbable or near-singular occurrence. In statistics when the sample size is large it is perfectly acceptable to discard nonsense or anonalous data points. There is a flaw there wherein is clearly demonstrated the limitations of mathematics to fully describe actual reality as opposed to a convenient approximation.

Thank you for generosity.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:46 PM
There is a very easy way to combat overskepticissity:

1. Take a photography class at your local learning annex.
2. Purchase bout ten grand worth of photo/video equipment including tripods, lenses, Flir, etc.
3. Make sure you're there, prepared and looking up at the sky when UFOs appear.
4. Gather witnesses and have them sign a prepared release form.
5. Take picture/video from different angles simultaneously.
6. Immediately place cameras into evidentiary Ziploc.
7. Have said Ziploc sealed by any cast member of CSI or a real CSI.
8. Document this procedure legally by having it notarized. (remember to always have a notary public with you)
9. Have someone take a picture of you, the witnesses, the UFO, the CSI, and the notary public, and have that notarized.
10. Send to ATS

Bob's your uncle!
It couldn't be simpler really.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by bringthelight


"I never believed in aliens or anything paranormal until a silent craft was hovering outside my window and i had a telepathic conversation with someone who wasn't from this planet. "

Can you share with us your telepathic conversation?
What did they say?

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Like I said in the OP, I'm not frustrated by sincere questioning of any and all evidence. The scientific method dictates that everything must be tested or else we're stuck without ever having "proven" anything. Where my issues lie is when someone enters one of these discussions and attempts to pass off their opinion as fact coupling that with what basically amounts to a blanket insult or public shaming of anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Statements like "That's obviously a bird, anyone who can't see that is a blind idiot." are not constructive nor do they do anything but hurt the overall goal of any UFO/alien hunter.

I believe people just can't handle the truth there is life out there, they have been visiting our planet. And humans are just so full of them self's and deeply scared so they call everything a 'fake' because they are actually the ones who can't handle it. Plain and simple.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
Oh let me add. Everyone thinks the proof is coming 2012. WHAT IF. Proof doesn't show up then? Huh were just stuck in this same mess all over again.

Think about it.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

*star* An interesting question...

Has the bar for "proof" been made unreachable?

Yes probably in the short term.

In the longterm probably not. What it's really going to take is more people to be open and comfortable with the idea. In the next couple decades as the baby-boomers start to kick the bucket and Generations X, Y, & Z
mature, I think we'll find more and more willingness to embrace the nature of this multiverse we live in. Still suffering a bit of a hangover from the pre-technological era.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:38 PM
just reading this post. Some people are saying people shouldn get angry when their posts are scrutinized. Fair point, but there are idiots who just find the most ridiculous things to scrutinize. Some of the debunkers come up with some real lame ways of tryin to prove something isnt the real thing. It may as well be swamp gas all over again! But i have to admit some of the UFO nuts are too biased. They refuse to see anything with any clarity. But debunkers try to pretend they see everything clearly without any bias. And simple observation shows that some of their posts are very obviously biased and completely ridiculous. It sort of reminds of reading Robert Deans retort to a UFO researcher who had a right go at him. The researcher in question just made stuff up basically saying Dean said all these things he had not said. Alot of people believed this stuff and went to town on Dean. When in fact Dean hadnt said any of the stuff the researcher had claimed he had. Look a coward. Happy enough to sit on the fence on the whole thing. I'm very skeptical of 90% of posts on here. But there are some skeptics who post regulary who are completely biased and not worth listening to. Dont buy into this "Debunkers are the sane ones" things. Some of them are completely as fruity as the hardcore biased UFO "ill believe anything" nuts. I just dont get why people cant keep an open mind and be objective instead of approaching everything determind to either prove it wrong or right without actually thinking about it with any clarity. Just a flaw in Humanity i guess!!!

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

I think people on both sides of the fence are to blame for this. I firmly believe that nothing can be "proven" unless you have experienced it directly yourself (maybe this makes me a fervent empiricist?) However, logic and reason can be used to speculate whether somebody is likely to be telling the truth or likely creating myths, or trying to combine both together!

Also remember that this website is about trying to uncover possible conspiracies - events/situations that technically cannot be "proven" factual because they are not accepted by mainstream society.

Then of course you get those people who disguise their agendas by referring to abnormalities and seek to persuade their readers that if they don't understand or accept this, they "need to wake up and stop being controlled!"

IMO, the bar for proof has not been made unreachable...sure it has been raised higher, but this is necessary to prevent an open acceptance to anything and everything having truth. Imagine if most people just took everything posted on this site as fact without thinking about the issue and those surrounding it?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:05 PM
Imo, a hefty amount of scrutiny and skepticism is a good thing, not a bad one. The harder someone tries to debunk something and is unable to, the more validity it gains.

One problem is that much of the evidence presented in almost all cases, really is incredibly shoddy. Shot through a dirty camera phone while the person is running backwards in a heavy rainstorm, that sort of thing.

As much as I am a believer in paranormal and UFO related subjects, I personally believe 90% or more of the stuff presented *is* bunk, and in fact, I think it detracts from the serious progression of proof for these subjects. People seeing faces in rocks, when they are just rocks, raindrops on lenses, birds and bugs caught on film, human-made crop circles, wild tales of underground complexes with reptillian aliens with evil agendas, yet there are no pictures, no film, no documents, nothing...

Stanton Friedman imo, has done the most solid research out there. He actually tries to not accept anything at face value, when so many (including on these boards), are ready to believe anything at the drop of a hat. Ex-military said it? It must be true! If more researchers actually went so far as to hunt down the typeface used on a letter from the 50s to verifiy the validity of the document, perhaps so much of the stuff presented these days wouldn't be met with laughable cynicism.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in