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.

 

This is for all the `ufo skeptics` must read

page: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


No you guys just refuse to see that there could be another answer. You just blindly believe but hey that's okay, no skin off my back. You will continute to see what you want...while the rest of us will search for the truth and question facts that are given.




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
i don't think anybody should speculate that a u.f.o sighting is an alien craft without more information about it,i agree with sceptics on this point. but i also don't think sceptics should'nt come along and 'make up' anything that looks simular without actually knowing if it was that thing and without more information.

im sick of seeing sceptics complain about believers speculating they are alien craft, yet the first thing they do when footage is shared is all come up with a guess to the point that 10 different sceptics have all offered 10 different explainations that they have no clue is true or not, then they say it is the more logical explaination.

dos'nt mean its right though does it. some sceptics speculate just as much as some believers.

its a car on a hill, but nobody checks if there was a hill, or if there was a road on the hill. its a man on bridge with a flashlight, but nobody checks for a bridge. etc etc.

as for the volume of reports about u.f.o's, i don't think anybody is saying none of them or misindentified, or none of them are hoax's, they are simply saying due to the volume of reports not ALL of them are nonesence.
some of them are serious and need investigastion to find out what the hell is going on.

but all you see is investigastion and discusion being stifled at every turn.
are sceptics seriously suggesting that all the military reports, public reports etc are all idiots who have no clue what they witnessed or experienced?

if it were one or two cases i might agree but we are not talking about one or two cases anymore. most people don't even report their sightings so the figure will be higher than recorded.

two reason for that is the being subjected to ridicule and its a waste of time anyway, ain't like anyone is going to take notice and take seriously what was witnessed by many in some cases. i certainly did'nt report my sighting, i was like "well whats the point"? "what will it acheive"? funny looks? my mental state being questioned even though i have never seen anything before it or after it? ridicule? people who did not see it trying to tell me what i saw even though their explaination dos'nt match what was seen?

the number of sightings should be ringing alarm bells already. but no we all have to believe the vast majority are dumber than us and we know better.



[edit on 20-10-2008 by lifeform]

[edit on 20-10-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by damagedoor
Does it? Every sighting or experience has to be something, and surely Occam's Razor would favour them being phenomena we already understand and accept?

To put it another way, we can present evidence that people do hoax, misidentify and have mental problems. I can see a spread of those being explanations for the thousands of sightings. But what evidence is there that aliens exist and should be considered an equally acceptable explanation? Without that evidence, the volume of sightings surely means nothing?


Oh, I don't know anything about aliens. I don't know of any particularly good "explanation" for the odd things people see and experience. Yes, people do hoax, and they see hallucinations, and they misidentify common things. But they also are known to be capable of accurately seeing and describing what they experience. So that has to be part of the equation, and can't be ignored.

So applying Occam's Razor exclusively to the sightings aspect of the phenomenon, then yes, the vast majority of things people see, experience and report is going to be something mundane. But since we know people can and do accurately see and describe what they experience, it's extremely unlikely that all of the sightings are inaccurate, and from the descriptions (again, assumed to be accurate) unlikely that we're talking about something mundane. It's a teensy, tiny percentage, but it's still there.

Of course, people tend to label those things they see as "aliens" or "ghosts" or whatever, because people feel a need to categorize things. But their categorizations are separate from their sightings. I personally don't care if people say they were taken aboard a flying saucer by bug people who said they were from another planet. The bug people could be lying, after all.


That's why I try to be careful and say that although it seems something weird is going on, we (certainly, I) really don't have a clue as to what that something might be. Aliens? Time travelers? Some quirky way our consciousnesses interact with reality? Beats me. Maybe we'll find out someday. Or not. Maybe it's something so outside of our own perception of reality that it will be literally incomprehensible.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


I am not questioning what people see. I am just questioning thier declarations that these are alien craft....I want to know how they know this to be true. Now if they stated that it COULD BE and not THAT IT IS then maybe skeptics and believers could get along. Once we question the facts then and only then can we get the somewhere. We will never make headway with anyone if we continue to make declarations without proof to back it up, and this is why most believers and hardcore skeptics seem like religious fanatics. They don't need any proof...thier faith in what they believe is good enough.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And if they are unidentified is it such a huge leap of imagination to assume they are extra-terrestial?


Well, actually, it is a bit of a leap. Without any additional evidence, an ET explanation is no better than saying they're ghosts, angels, demons or leprechauns.

The best way to categorize them is just to leave them as "unknown." But that's hard for some people to do. It makes people uneasy.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And if they are unidentified is it such a huge leap of imagination to assume they are extra-terrestial?


Well, actually, it is a bit of a leap. Without any additional evidence, an ET explanation is no better than saying they're ghosts, angels, demons or leprechauns.

For sure nohup. I never thought of it that way..who's to say they are not fairies ..etc. I am not saying I believe they are fairies...etc..just since we are going to be throwing out theories as to what these are..this is just as good as the alien or government theory...why because no one knows what they are and they could be anything.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Okaydokay.

Please excuse my semi-ignorance, but there was no way in hell I was reading 17 pages of the same old crap that congeals around the Aliens & UFO's section of ATS, It would just take to long, at it's around 3 am over here.

Anyhoo, this one is DIRECT to the OP. You say your tired of skeptics shooting you down all the time, and there is irrefutable evidence of ET presence around our side of town blah blah blah. Right for a start, I'm not debunker okay, I wan''t to believe as well; I consider myself a skeptical believer.

The ONLY way you can approach a topic such as this is with a skeptical angle, regardless of any 'smoking gun' evidence that you consider valid. Debunkers are another story all together, bad news - will say anything to back their beliefs (same thing can be said to some stubborn wide-eyed believers as well). Skeptics on the other hand help ground the 'field', if you want to call it that, and provide a sandgrain of sanity on the Crahazy Desert.

Don't be so quick to shoot down skeptics - everyone has their own opinion of what good evidence is, and sometimes even good evidence is flawed.



[edit on 20-10-2008 by Smugallo]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by lifeform
 


I am not questioning what people see. I am just questioning thier declarations that these are alien craft....I want to know how they know this to be true. Now if they stated that it COULD BE and not THAT IT IS then maybe skeptics and believers could get along. Once we question the facts then and only then can we get the somewhere. We will never make headway with anyone if we continue to make declarations without proof to back it up, and this is why most believers and hardcore skeptics seem like religious fanatics. They don't need any proof...thier faith in what they believe is good enough.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by riggs2099]


i was'nt accusing anyone inparticular, i was simply pointing out how some sceptics speculate inorder to explain the footage in the same way some believers speculate it is a alien craft.

and some sceptics do believe people are misidentifying or hoaxing in every case, even if you don't think that yourself.

i totally agree with what you say (in quote).

even after my own experience there is no way on earth i could say it was a alien craft for sure, the only thing that makes me think it is a possibility is how advanced it must of been to make the manouvers it made, but i still cannot say it was a alien craft, and that is even with seeing something for myself, let alone some strangers video who i have never met and do not have all the information about the event at my disposal, only the posted video.

so i agree proof is needed before saying they are alien craft, and each case is seprate and each case would need such proof inorder to say it was an alien craft.

but some sceptics need to realise the same applies when they are speculating about the explaination, some sort of workable proof is needed rather than random wild guesses, that might be right but nobody knows.

its no different to wildly guessing its an alien craft, which might be right but nobody knows.







[edit on 20-10-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform

but some sceptics need to realise the same applies when they are speculating about the explaination, some sort of workable proof is needed rather than random wild guesses, that might be right but nobody knows.

its no different to wildly guessing its an alien craft, which might be right but nobody knows.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by lifeform]


There is a difference.

In presenting possible explanations, skeptics use known quantities, things and phenomena that are known to exist. The explanations may be hasty, incomplete, or just plain wrong but they are based on things we know are true. They are also sometimes (often?) shown to be correct.

There is no basis, other than there is no explanation, so it must be alien, for claims that they are alien. There is no way to know if any of them are actually alien.

The only truly "honest" way to handle it is by just leaving it at "unknown". But that's no damned fun for anyone. Is it?

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
www.hourofthetime.com...

Veritas News Service - The following is fact. It is not a theory it is a genuine conspiracy. I witnessed the Top Secret/Majic documents from which this information is excerpted while a member of the United States Navy attached to the Intelligence Briefing Team of Admiral Bernard Clarey, Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet.

I certify that the following information is true and correct to the best of my memory and the research that I have accomplished. I will swear to it in any court of Law.

I can produce the names of approximately 38 U.S. Navy officers and enlisted men who witnessed these documents while in the service of their country. I can produce the names of approximately 8 people involved in the UFO deception who have witnessed these documents. I can produce the names of approximately 80 others whom I suspect have witnessed these same documents. I will not reveal the names except in a court of Law that is willing to prosecute the People and organizations involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States of America to bring about a socialist totalitarian world government.

For many years I sincerely believed that an extraterrestrial threat existed and that it was the most important driving force behind world events. I was wrong and for that I most deeply and humbly apologize.

Many years ago I had access to a set of documents that I eventually realized was the plan for the destruction of the united States of America and the formation of a socialist totalitarian world government. The plan was contained within a set of Top Secret documents with the title "MAJESTYTWELVE". There was no space between majesty and twelve. The term honored the planned placement of ultimate power in a body of wise men who are destined to rule the world as the disciples of a Messiah front man. This Messiah will serve as a buffer between the wise men and the sheople. I discovered these documents between 1970 and 1973 while I was a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by lifeform

but some sceptics need to realise the same applies when they are speculating about the explaination, some sort of workable proof is needed rather than random wild guesses, that might be right but nobody knows.

its no different to wildly guessing its an alien craft, which might be right but nobody knows.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by lifeform]


There is a difference.

In presenting possible explanations, skeptics use known quantities, things and phenomena that are known to exist. The explanations may be hasty, incomplete, or just plain wrong but they are based on things we know are true. They are also sometimes (often?) shown to be correct.

There is no basis, other than there is no explanation, so it must be alien, for claims that they are alien. There is no way to know if any of them are actually alien.

The only truly "honest" way to handle it is by just leaving it at "unknown". But that's no damned fun for anyone. Is it?

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]


i agree in over half of the cases they are proven wrong, but thats because the person who proved it wrong went more indepth than simply annoucing it is a said object with no proof. and to be honest its very rare you get good enough none hoaxed footage to challenge anybody with. its mostly people seeing u.f.o's where there were none in the first place.

but when a video turns up that does need more investigastion there is no harm in admiting you don't know the answer, or don't know what it is, if that is the case. speculating what it is dos'nt identify what it is, and people just become lazy and sit by their keyboards pretending they know better than anyone else and come up with the first thing that pops in their head without actually knowing if what they are proposing stands up when tested.

for example the people who say its space debris or ice particles hardly ever provide anything it can be checked against for reference and likeness to the observed u.f.o. for a comparsion, and hardly ever provide any information on the likelyhood, and sizes of space junk for example ...
en.wikipedia.org...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

strange space junk, magic space junk, slows down, stops, then moves with earths orbit. they are either drones, manned craft or unknown craft i.e. not ours or some sort of lifeform we have not discovered. IMO there are only 4 options covering all possibilities once you get past the hoaxes and explainations that do NOT fit what is observed. anyone serious about the finding the answers would'nt even touch the obvious hoaxes that most sceptics cling to, to denounce the better more compelling stuff.

i won't explain why, all the data is in the nasa videos. if only people could think why it cannot be space junk or ice particles.

lifeless objects do not brake the laws of motion, only alive creatures/beings, and controlled craft can choose which way they want to go and wether to stop or not.

so IMO saying they are alien craft is speculation without proof, but not as far fetch as some would like you to think when considering all the reports and better examples of footage and excluding the stupid hoaxes and windups.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by damagedoor
Having read this thread as a skeptic, I remain unconvinced. Internos's explanation of the balloon clip was particularly excellent, and objections to it seemed a little desperate.

I'm curious though - are there any cases that skeptics and believers alike say "yeah, that's a bit weird" about? Obviously, there are examples where you can't say for sure either way, but what's the strongest evidence out there?

I, personally, while not falling in the "skeptics" section because i believe in the existence of alien intelligent life forms, take seriously only a very narrowed list of cases: all the cases that i take seriously, are extremely hard to explain, this is why i'm NOT particularry interested in observing and dissecting videos of balloons.

Regarding the Concorde's footage, all i know is this: a group of students postulated that it was some kind of reflection, they even tried to re-create the same effect in flight, onboard a similar aircraft and filming a Concorde: the point is, i've never seen their analysis and nothing, in the movement of the camera, would suggest that what we see is a reflection. Unless the light source created the movement by itself, independently. Regardless its size, i would like to add that IF real, it was something controlled intelligently: it's way more far fetched to assume that it was a balloon than it was some kind of probe, or stuff like that. I could even make some search and post the results here, but as you can see i've wasted time enough in this thread



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Oh, I don't know anything about aliens. I don't know of any particularly good "explanation" for the odd things people see and experience. Yes, people do hoax, and they see hallucinations, and they misidentify common things. But they also are known to be capable of accurately seeing and describing what they experience. So that has to be part of the equation, and can't be ignored.


Ah, I see. Well, I think we're more or less on the same page with that. It was the 'misidentify' that threw me, since I took it to imply someone saying 'that's an alien' rather than 'I don't know what that is'.


Originally posted by Nohup
So applying Occam's Razor exclusively to the sightings aspect of the phenomenon, then yes, the vast majority of things people see, experience and report is going to be something mundane. But since we know people can and do accurately see and describe what they experience, it's extremely unlikely that all of the sightings are inaccurate, and from the descriptions (again, assumed to be accurate) unlikely that we're talking about something mundane. It's a teensy, tiny percentage, but it's still there.


I see where you're coming from, but I think I still disagree. It's true that people do see and describe things accurately, as well as hoax, misidentify or imagine. But I don't think it's justified to apply that spread of explanations to a specific type of sighting. I'd apply it overall: most people accurately describe the world all the time so there's no reason to assume that, when they describe something extraordinary, it's not one of the 'aberrations'.

I mean, you could also argue that 'most people know who they are and are sane', and that only a small number of people are mentally deluded. It doesn't mean that if you have a room full of people who believe they're Napoleon that some of them must be right. And I don't see how increasing the number of people makes it more likely, or even a simpler explanation.

Not a flattering comparison, I know, but I'm using it only for the logic. I don't mean most believers are deluded. I totally accept there are honest, intelligent people who have had something apparently inexplicable happen to them.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
Regarding the Concorde's footage, all i know is this: a group of students postulated that it was some kind of reflection, they even tried to re-create the same effect in flight, onboard a similar aircraft and filming a Concorde: the point is, i've never seen their analysis and nothing, in the movement of the camera, would suggest that what we see is a reflection. Unless the light source created the movement by itself, independently. Regardless its size, i would like to add that IF real, it was something controlled intelligently: it's way more far fetched to assume that it was a balloon than it was some kind of probe, or stuff like that. I could even make some search and post the results here, but as you can see i've wasted time enough in this thread


Cheers for this, Internos. I'll have a search and a read.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Why would a interplanetary spacecraft have lights on it? why cant we use spectrography to determine the type of light emitted? To me, an aircraft or spacecraft with lights on it seems to want to be seen.Why?



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
oooh my thread
17 pages of replies!!
wow the biggest thread created this week on ats

thanks for your amazing replies guys
skeptics..... we`re coming for you
the game is almost up
what you going to do when a craft lands and somebody gets out

youll still scream hoax!



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
skeptics..... we`re coming for you
the game is almost up


Once again, this proves that you are not interested in proving the existence of extraterrestrial visitation. You are only interested in silencing those who may disagree with you. You seem to think that if it wasn't for the skeptics, you would have the proof you need to prove that aliens are visiting the planet. This is not the case; the evidence will stand on its own merits, regardless of any skeptic.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The last time the Wackos wanted to be taken seriously, they bowed to the power of the Pope and saw 'angels,' now the Wackos don't burn the rest of us anymore, rather get taken seriously about, well, nothing darling.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I would have left this alone,but you had to go and say that about Jesus Christ...

There are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people who KNOW beyond a shadow of ANY doubt that Jesus Christ existed,because not only did he exist before the foundations of the world ("Before Abraham was,I AM" - Jesus Christ),but he LIVES in our hearts!

"Christ in me,the hope of glory"...

As for the "ET/UFO" thing... I keep an open mind about it...But my mind is not so open that my BRAINS FALL OUT! lol

You may be interested in this video...(Full Screen)

www.youtube.com...

And in this article...

awaken.weebly.com...

Where it discusses in detail how the "Secret Government" are planning on a FAKE "Alien Invasion" to usher in (To a MUCH greater extent than ever before) their goal of a "New World Order"...

Hey...I WANT there to be "Aliens" too...I mean how COOL would that be!
I said in another post,if they are "Real",then (Being a huge "Star Wars" fan) I will ask them to make me a REAL "Light Saber"! lol (I'am not being sarcastic here,I am being serious) I mean hey...If they can travel millions of light years,or through multiple dimensions to get here,then I'am sure they could do it! lol Think about it...

BUT...there is just so much evidence that points in the direction of all of this being nothing more than one MASSIVE "Psy-Op" campaign!

Example...

"The Disclosure Project" being funded by the ROCKEFELLERS!


OwlMan

[edit on 22-10-2008 by OwlMan]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
skeptics..... we`re coming for you
the game is almost up
what you going to do when a craft lands and somebody gets out

youll still scream hoax!


No. I would say "my position as a skeptic hasn't changed".

In other words, I was perfectly justified in doubting the existence of aliens before the landing. After the landing, I would feel I had enough evidence for the belief to be reasonable. My overall attitude wouldn't have changed and I wouldn't consider that I had ever been 'wrong'.

The same as if a unicorn theorist suddenly produced a genuine unicorn.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join