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: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I think I have to agree to some extent with your frustration, OP. I used to be extremely doubtful about aliens / UFO's in general, though I never gave it much thought. When I saw a floating, rotating cube-shaped thing in broad daylight, however, and clearly verified that it was not hanging from any trees or cranes and in fact had nothing above it, and nothing below it because it soon moved away, I was forced to take the idea a little more seriously.

However, what I have is simply my own eyewitness account. I don't expect anybody to believe me if I tell them. Some friends who were there at the time couldn't even see the thing when I tried to point it out to them. So really the whole story doesn't count for much, and that's the way it should be. As someone stated above, a true skeptic is a valuable thing... it is important to keep a clear and rational scientific mentality about these things. As I believe Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

But in light of all the things you have pointed out, I do agree that even the most rational mind ought to be asking a few unanswered questions. Some would say that the most plausible solutions for these sightings are commonly explainable phenomena, but I must disagree at a certain point. In fact, I find it useful to come at the subject from the other side:

It is generally accepted in the scientific community that intelligent life has evolved in numerous places throughout the universe, even on as many as hundreds of worlds in our own galaxy (or conversely, as few as one or two per galaxy). Drake's Equation is just an outdated, early version of this observation... nowadays, everything we know about planetary formation and the evolution of life supports this theory. So, why WOULDN'T there be intelligent life, observing us?

Even today, we are able to see the chemical compositions of smaller and smaller planets in star systems that are farther and farther away, with the advance of telescope technology. Is it so hard to believe that a hypothetical intelligent alien race could observe the potential for life on our own world? And wouldn't they be extremely curious about it if they could?

If you ask me, the only argument against an alien "presence" here on Earth (even if just watching us, say, from a distant orbit) that seems to consistently hold any weight is the idea that the laws of relativity prevent any reasonable travel of interstellar distances. As far as relativity is concerned, this is absolutely true. But what astounds me is that these people honestly believe we will never find a technological solution to this problem.

The Greeks said man would never fly. Theorists during the Industrial Revolution said technology would never advance farther than it was. And the sound barrier, well we could never go faster than that one, either.

There had been speculation in the late 1940s that it might be impossible to break the sound barrier (that was why it was called a barrier), and the early tests of the Convair F-102 gave some credence to this fear.

www.century-of-flight.net...

My point is, as soon as you start assuming that you've got the final word on a subject, you cross over from the land of scientific inquiry into the land of fools. Newton's Laws of Physics are being broken down as we speak, and who knows what they'll discover at the LHC. Interstellar distances are just one more Atlantic Ocean for the Vikings to cross.

( And yes, the Vikings crossed it before Columbus.
)

So when all is said and done, aliens aren't such a hard thing for me to accept. Of course I will never dismiss the possibility that what I personally saw might easily have been something else, too. But aliens are a real possibility, and I see no reason to dismiss that one, either.




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


There was no 24/7 coverage during WWII. Everything was heavily censored, nothing was live.


The videos? Sure.

The first one is probably a remote controlled aircraft. What the propulsion system is, I don't know, possibly a ducted fan. I believe the video has been speeded up at the end of the video. It's been discussed here several times with no final conclusions reached.


The second one, the UFO across the moon one, has been thoroughly discussed. The photographer has confirmed that the video shows a balloon, within the atmosphere.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
weneedtoknow - I believe in UFO's/Aliens but this stuff you posted is 'old hat'... and thoroughly debunked or identified for the better part of it. Don't go patting yourself on the back just yet!

[FAIL] LOL!

 




I know you're thinking "Hey, look at all this evidence... now the skeptics will come around and see it...", but it's not even about evidence. Skeptics think the way they do for one or both of these reasons:
1) They haven't seen anything out of the ordinary yet.
2) They've got a powerful amount of mind control on them, making them think that way regardless of what anyone says.


MegaCurious

Hmmm, it appears your knowledge on both this topic & 'skeptics' is extremely limited! [FAIL]

As mentioned I have no problem believing in Aliens & UFO's. I've had my my own personal experiences.

However

It's many people that report them that I'm cynical about. There are too many hoaxers and nut jobs to take the stories and sightings at face value. Further research must be done before drawing conclusions.. as the OP appears to have done. If I didn't know better, the Op just became familiar with this material.

IRM


[edit on 18/10/08 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by silver6ix
 


There was no 24/7 coverage during WWII. Everything was heavily censored, nothing was live.


The videos? Sure.

The first one is probably a remote controlled aircraft. What the propulsion system is, I don't know, possibly a ducted fan. I believe the video has been speeded up at the end of the video. It's been discussed here several times with no final conclusions reached.


The second one, the UFO across the moon one, has been thoroughly discussed. The photographer has confirmed that the video shows a balloon, within the atmosphere.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]


See heres the thing. The reality that you choose to accept is more fantastic than anyone claiming Aliens are here.

Lets consider your 'Balloon theory". Watch the film and see what happens at 1:13. Oh look doesnt the object get obscured by a terrain feature? Theres your balloon theory gone in a single flash of truth im afraid. For that to occur the object was either on the ground or more likely, its shadow was what we were seeing on the ground.

Ballons in Earths atmosphere do not dissappear behind terraint featurs on the moon the last time I checked. So while you might claim to have debunked it, you havent and neither has anyone else claiming its a balloon.

This beside the simple fact that anyone looking at its movement could tell you in the blink of an eye it moves nothing like a balloon.

On the Italian Airforce one. First off its not a toy as you can see its scale compared to the bridge. Inducted fans could not provide that movement or speed for it even now never mind then and also the way the lights pop in an out of the body and vanish completely is wholly unknown or annanounced tech. Whaterver it was it was highly technologically advanced and since it was taken in the region of Italys obscure military base and logical mind would be thinking its likely to be a military protocol test.

Someone making a super secret high tech toy in a military base based on tech we dont even have in 2008, sure thats a reasonable idea. I think more reasonable would be that it was a prototype craft designed based on tech we dont know about, and that begs the question who does know about it and how?

PS as I said the footage was professionally analysed and hasnt been tampered, sped up or manipulated. So no, it wasnt sped up what you see is what its movement was.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Did you read the statement from the man who made the video of the balloon?

Can you produce any other source of the Battle of LA "video"?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Did you read the statement from the man who made the video of the balloon?

Can you produce any other source of the Battle of LA "video"?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Phage]


The statement doesnt match the facts. Dont you think a skilled astronomer might have considered that before releasing the film. I mean hell its only what he does for a living.

I think its fairly obvious he would have considered the simplest explanations first of all and id i also thing in his time doing what he does he would know what a balloon looks like as well as most other things, wouldnt you?

Again, in 1.13 of the clip I posted you can clearly see the shadow obscured by terain as it passes behind a rock, like I said, balloons in earths atmosphere dont cast shadows on the moon and in order to be obscured by moon rock whatever it was had to be on the moon.

Someone doing a uturn and coming up with an explanation which doesnt fit is hardly a new thing, in fact its quite common.

Its precisely this kind of deceptive behavior that causes conspiracy theory. It would have been smarter to just leave it as an unknown phenomenon rather than come out and make a statement which anyone who looks knows is flagrantly not true, then people think you are covering something up.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
What do the skeptics always say.. `give me one clear picture of a alien craft`
YOUVE GOT ONE... GO TO THE BILLY MEIER CASE! all you need is one picture.. just one picture to be genuine but theres thousands which havent been debunked, but do we hear about them? will skeptics mention them? NO.


uh oh... you were doing fine until you sent THAT beacon out... I expect a certian image expert to appear any minute




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
This is for skeptics of the et/ufo phenomena you better read and read good because ive had just about enough of you insulting our intelligence!


Debating evidence and presenting a different viewpoint is not an insult to your intelligence.

You are approaching this with a very confrontational attitude. It seems you are less interested in debating the merits of the evidence, and more interested in attacking those who disagree. With a lack of evidence to prove your case, you instead seem to want to prove it by proxy, as if attacking and browbeating a skeptic is a stand-in for the evidence you are missing.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
You have Edgar Mitchell one of only 6 people to walk the moon and a respected scientist who has come out and said aliens and ufos are real


With all due respect to Dr. Mitchell, just because he walked on the moon does not grant him special knowledge about extraterrestrial life. He claims no first-hand experience with extraterrestrials. He claims to have heard stories from unnamed sources, presenting no other evidence than ancedote. Dr. Mitchell's stories are not proof, but rather hearsay.

For all any of us know, he could be right or he could be wrong. But until further evidence is comes forth, none of us can make that judgement.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
the ex governor of arizona who at the time covered up the phoenix lights making the famous secretary in a alien costume joke come out and say `we didnt know what these were thats why we made a mockery out of it, im convinced it wasnt from this planet`! (his words)


Like Edgar Mitchell's experience on the moon, Fife Symington's position as governor does not grant him special knowledge or qualification, nor does it somehow prove extraterrestrials are among us. That is not the say he did not see something he could not explain. Symington's statement is not proof of anything; it is a statement of belief, nothing more.

Mentioning Edgar Mitchell has been to the moon, or that the governor of Arizona in 1998 lends a false weight to the argument, as they have nothing to do with the experiences of either man. They are essentially meaningless to the debate. If Dr. Mitchell had encountered something on the moon, or if Symington had some insider knowledge in his role as governor, it would be a different story. But this was not the case in either case you presented.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
Add on top of that the millions of pictures videos witness testimonies etc etc and you are telling me EVERY SINGLE one of these people are lying, or EVERY single one of these people didnt see what they saw, and these pilots who are trained to identify every single craft out there just mis - saw, and that each time its really a `weather balloon` or a `bird` or `swamp gas` or `weather phenomenon`... EVERY SINGLE TIME? GIVE IT A BREAK!


You are attacking skeptics based on a caricature that exists only in the minds of UFO believers. No one says all of these people are lying, delusional, or mis-identified something. Yes, some of those people are, and yes there are UFO sightings that can be attributed to what you present as inane explanations. But it would be ridiculous to say that is the case with everyone who has had some sort of experience. Every single skeptic here on the board will agree with that.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
What do the skeptics always say... all you need is one picture.. just one picture to be genuine but theres thousands which havent been debunked, but do we hear about them? will skeptics mention them?


Just because a picture has not been debunked, does not mean it has been proven to be a picture of an alien craft. What it means is that the picture defies an explanation. One can say what they believe the picture to me, but they cannot say, with any authority, what it is. Depending on their point of view, one person can say the picture is A, and another can say it is B, but until further evidence is presented supporting one argument over the other, it remains unexplained.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
In future, instead of screaming `hoax` every time anyone has any sort of ufo footage.. bear in mind that there is MORE EVIDENCE OF EXTRA TERRESTRIAL CRAFT THAN THERE IS OF JESUS EVER EXISTING.. AND THAT CAN NOT BE DENIED!


First, you are once again basing an attack on skeptics on a caricature that only exists in your mind and the mind of certain UFO believers. No skeptic screams "hoax" at every instance of footage.

Second, you are presenting a pointless argument. If we were arguing the weight of evidence for Jesus versus that of extraterrestrial visitation, you might have a point. But we are not; thus far, you are the only person to bring up Jesus. In the context of this discussion, one has nothing to do with the other.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
So yes go ahead.. imature skeptics, take one or two of the words i say.. quote it and try and attack me... but at the end of the day, you know in your heart of hearts that these extra terrestrial crafts DO exist and thats all what matters!


Debating evidence, providing alternative explanations outside of the UFO hypothesis is not an "attack" on you. Nor is presenting a contrary viewpoint "immature." However, a belief that they are is itself a sign of immaturity and closed-mindedness.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
i did it
ive silenced the skeptics
at last


This further makes me question your motivation in this post. You do not want to prove the existence of extraterrestrial visitation, but silence those who may disagree with you. This speaks to a great deal of insecurity on your part. In silencing skeptics, you will not be confronted with anything that may challenge those beliefs.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


At 1:13, just before the cut, the object is not obscured by anything. Are you watching the actual video in the upper right part of the whole frame or the large composite? In the composite the object fades as it gets to the edge.

There is no shadow on the moon. The balloon is seen in silhouette against the moon.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I think Megacurious may be correct.

I am skeptical about alot of things posted in ATS, and I do believe I am under the influence of mind control. Only problem with his theory is that he assumes someone ELSE is controlling my mind and not me.

I think the scarier element is those that stagger through life with noone controlling their minds at all.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
to be honest
the los angeles case in itself is sufficient evidence
would the military try and shoot down `weather balloons` i dont think so!


Perhaps you would be right if you ignore atmosphere that existed at the time of the Battle of Los Angeles. However, you have to take that into context.

The Battle of Los Angeles occured just two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was feared the Japanese would soon hit the American mainland. Just a day before the Battle of Los Angeles, a Japanese submarine attacked the Elwood Oil Field in Santa Barbara. This incited an invasion scare along the California coast. In that atmosphere, the military would have fired on anything and everything that could not be identified as American.

Even among witnesses who saw the battle take place there was disagreement on the number of craft involved or what they were. Some say they were multiple planes, other say a single object, and others say they saw nothing at all.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



You are truly difficult.

Ok lets try something else first. You stated "it doesnt change diection" as being on of the gentlemans reasons for the apparent confusion, right?

So, lets have a look at something in this clip (use this one because for some reason the timing seems to be different between two links, just so we are on the same page here.

Now I am looking at the upper right hand VIDEO window: the sequence of interest is 0.46-1.12.



The object does change direction. Lets disregard the composite for amoment and assume his claim is correct that its the composit that makes it appear that way. False. In that single video segment it has an eliptic curve of direction and does indeed change direction uniformly. A balloon doesnt do that.


Now, in that same sequence of video from 1.07-1.12 watch something else. You will notice in this section of terrain in the video window theirs extreme white crater ridges. Watch the behavior of the object as it crosses over the two ridges and the crater. It behaves like a shadow, its distorted by height and depth clearly as it crosses one ridge, dips in the crater and rises on the other ridge. All in the same video sequence, completely disragardin g the composite view.

Watch again from 1.38-1.40 as it crosses the right side of the second most extreme white area, notice something? Same behavior, the object deforms with the same behavior as something moving across the side of raised terrain.

Now logically given the "water tank" effect in the video you could attribute this behavior to coincidence of timing if it happened just once. On all the extreme white altitude spikes, the object displays the same behavior. This isnt coincidence its pattern.

On the point I mentioned before is actually 1.22-1.24 and although the obscuring effect is less visible in the video its still there, coinciding perfectly again with the terrain features. In the video pass the terrain thats causing the effect isnt visible correctly, its blurred but the effect is there.

Im not an unreasonable person, I can assure you ive been quite happy to debunk or dismiss more than a few video sequences and images here and in general but given the consistency of this objects behavior in relation to the terrain features I find it stretching very long and very hard to suggest its a balloon.

This comes on top of the fact I am certain the man who posted this knows exactly what a balloon looks like hes probably seen many such obstructions in his career, his job is studying images like this and he released this as an unknown object after having considered and dismissed the simple and rediculous.

Then the story changes and it does not fit the footage which actually fits his original concept of UNKNOWN.

Id have accepted something drifting somehow in the Moons orbit or something rational but I know it wasnt a balloon. Ive watched the footage time and again, in slow motion, fast motion, zoomed, and my conclusion remains the same, it does NOT behave like a ballon, it behaves like a shadow or reflection on the surface its passing over.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Another thread started by someone who easily swayed by a few pictures...etc. I know there are UFO's but are they alien spacecraft...no evidence they are. I am unwilling to believe something without solid proof to back it up..all it just is...IS SPECULATION. Eyewitness accounts I feel are should be taken with a grain of salt...why?..because you will also have eyewitness's to vampires and werewolves..etc. So if I am to believe one without using reason and logic then I must also believe the other one. As I have said before..it is reasonable to believe they aren't here because of the lack of evidence and logical to assume they aren't her due to the distance. Photo's and video aren't evidence of alien craft..just of unknown craft..could be military, could be not...no one knows for sure. Eyewitness's can also be mistaken by what they see. Contactees to me are the most unbelievable accounts there are, They can be attributed to a form of sleep paralysis, be mentally unstable or just looking for attention.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaCurious
Skeptics think the way they do for one or both of these reasons:
1) They haven't seen anything out of the ordinary yet.
2) They've got a powerful amount of mind control on them, making them think that way regardless of what anyone says.


1) This is as wrong as saying the only way someone could believe is if they had an experience. I myself have had a UFO sighting. The operative letter in this acronym being "U." I don't know what I saw, all I know it was strange. For all I know, it could have been extraterrestrials, a secret military craft, or the Wild Hunt let loose upon the world.

2) What a ridiculous notion. Do you believe that there is no such thing as a valid disagreement with you? Do you really think that the only possible way for someone to disagree is being of some sort of mind-control or brainwashing?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Phage
 

You are truly difficult.

Ok lets try something else first. You stated "it doesnt change diection" as being on of the gentlemans reasons for the apparent confusion, right?


No, I didn't say it doesn't change direction. I agree it appears to change direction. The photographer, an amateur astronomer says that. After intensive analysis it was determined that it appears to change direction because of the the movement of the moon.

The object does not go behind anything at any point in the video.

It was a balloon.

This discussion is off topic so I'm going to drop it now.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Great post OP!

I always thought it was cheesy how the media treats sightings. Of course, they seem to deliberately cover the obvious hoaxes when they do try to get "real".

I am reading Stanton Friedman's latest book right now "Flying Saucers and Science". Its an interesting read. He shattered some of the thinking I had on the subject, particularly, interstellar travel being unattainable anytime soon. I would highly recommend it to skeptics and believers alike.

I spoke with Stanton Friedman in 1991 when I heard that a fellow airman had spoken with him. I described to him the metallic "mercury droplets" in the sky I had witnessed at Nellis AFB, NV in 1989-1990 as an Air Force Crew Chief. I wrote to an address he had in one of his first books and was really surprised that he actually called me a week later. I'm pretty sure what I and 7 other airmen had seen wasn't "ours".

........Good times!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I say thank God for skeptics. Otherwise we'd have to believe someone who calls a bird "incredible alien morphing technology". Yes that was an actual thread here. Piacenza was the poster.

It is insane how someone can swallow something like that hook, line , and sinker and then get upset with the people who do not believe it.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Again and again and again.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence. But we don't have a clue as to what it is evidence of. Aliens? I don't know of anything that has ever proven that beyond a doubt. Time travelers? An equally likely scenario. Physically generated thought forms? Just as good an explanation as any. Or, as I've often said, UFOs might not be anything as simple and dull as aliens from space, but might represent aspects of consciousness and reality and time that we don't understand and might possibly not be able to understand. Incomprehensible.

The Washington Monument. Most people agree that it exists. Think about why that is. Now compare that to "aliens," or "time travelers," or whatever UFOs may represent. There's something missing from the equation. I don't have to "believe" the Washington Monument exists, or rely on circumstantial evidence.

The day somebody comes up with the same amount and quality of evidence for the reality of the "explanation" of UFOs that I have for the Washington Monument, then I'll go along with it. How hard could that be?


Until then, though, the phenomenon remains unexplained, in spite of a few interesting photos/video (in amongst a lot of dreck), odd reports, hearsay, wild speculation, and no small amount of plain old hogwash.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer
I say thank God for skeptics. Otherwise we'd have to believe someone who calls a bird "incredible alien morphing technology". Yes that was an actual thread here. Piacenza was the poster.


He was confused... it should have read ""incredible NASA morphing technology"





Buck Rogers, Watch Out!
NASA researchers are studying insects and birds, and using "smart" materials with uncanny properties to develop new and mindboggling aircraft designs.

"Birds are so much more maneuverable than our airplanes are today. Birds can hover, they can fly backwards and sideways. And insects -- oh forget it! -- upside down, loop-de-loop, all sorts of things." Anna McGowan,program manager for the Morphing Project at NASA's Langley Research Center


science.nasa.gov...


But a sckeptic would not volunteer such an option... they would merely just 'debunk' the OP




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Don't we already have enough of these "hey skeptics we have claims of Ets but no proof of them" all over ATS?

It's the same thing over and over again. It's becoming repetetive, boring and uninteresting.

It's becoming tiresome.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by spacebagel]







 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join