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: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Show me a snow from Mount Everest !!!!!!

Can you ? No ? So.. there is NOT any snow on Mount Everest, simple !




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 


Im not saying it couldnt be debunked by the means suggested but its going to have to be far more visible that what ive seen.

First of all we dont know what calculation was used, specifically what equations are delivering this apparent new truth, based on which data values.

From there I would want to see if the data values pertaining to those variables is the same in the first data released as the ones being used to make the new calculation, or is there some mysterious change in certain values which were "apparently wrong" at the first time. Much of this data would be gathered real time so id have serious questions if any of the values had changed or been modified.

As it stands at this present point in time I have no incling as to equations and calculations were performed, which variables were used and whether those variables have been changed or modified from the original data set.

With this being the case im certainly not about to just take the persons word which he has already changed once. Didnt he do some calculation originally because my understanding is anyone studying such imagery and data would have done all this immediately on seeing it, they would have checked the pertinant data and come to an initial conclusion. Im sorry but for me this debunk just doesnt hold any water at this moment in time, theres too many things im being asked to just "accept" based on the idea that I dont have the knowledge to verify personally.

One thing ive learned is that just "taking someones word" is not good thinking in looking at these kind of things because between hoaxers, mind changers and inconsistant stories, peoples word turns to be the least reliable source of data.

I have the image, now id like to see which values and which calculations were used and verify that the original data set was used without ANY changing of figures.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
You're deflecting from the original topic, a topic you started.


No that comment is just as valid and to the point...

But then the way the skeptic tactics work is quite interesting...




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
No that comment is just as valid and to the point...

But then the way the skeptic tactics work is quite interesting...


Please refrain from accusing others of using tactics to distract and insult when you post an image equating skeptics with Nazis.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Please refrain from accusing others of using tactics to distract and insult when you post an image equating skeptics with Nazis.


That was created by an ATS member from the last skeptic thread where all this was rehashed before... Seems it must be a slow news day to drag all this through the wringer yet again...



Well enjoy... I hope this thread accomplishes more than the last one err several...

And ya just gotta love the new trend in Alien threads

"Aliens eat 200,000 U.S. missing children per year"

[edit on 19-10-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Of course UFO's exist. But not every case is an alien ship. That is where the skepticism comes in. You cannot allow yourself to believe in everything that somebody puts in front of you. You have to use your critical facilities to examine it and question whether it might be something normal that is being seen in an un-normal way.

One time I was out in the Goldfield Mountains about ten at night prospecting for gold in the dry washes. I saw a huge light rise in the western sky slowly disappearing into space. Boy was I excited. I just knew this was the best UFO ever.....until I got home and found out there was a Minuteman III missile launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base that night.

Then there are the deliberate hoaxes. Just go to YouTube. I get so sick of watching poorly done CGI presented as UFO's.

I have not heard anyone here say that THERE ARE NO ALIENS OR SHIPS. But maybe I have not been reading closely enough.

I have seen things all my life that cannot be explained and I know that some of them have been from elsewhere, but I will still question what is presented as a UFO because I know how easily the eye is fooled by things that are unusual.

Edited to say that flow chart is so right on!!

[edit on 10-19-2008 by groingrinder]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
There was a window of opportunity that lasted for about 50-100 years, during which clear photo and video evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft could have been recorded. Unfortunately that window closed several years ago, when it became possible to generate utterly convincing CGI videos. I'm afraid there's no convincing a skeptic now, unless he becomes abducted himself. UFO's are still an interesting topic, but there's no use in arguing about them anymore.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I live by a rule, assume nothing. Its that simple.

I could look at all the alien threads and "assume" that everyone is crackers. I wont.

I could also look at the fact that if anyone wanted to discredit a field of study for their own motives, it would be easy to ensure such threads and discussions werealways highly visible as a meansof dissuading the average curious person from taking anything seriously.

All of these threads are old and yet they all pop back up onto the main page, does this happen everytime the topics become to serious and focused? Anyone who wanted to maintain the perception of tin foil hats and make people believe the whole subject was for nut jobs would be delighted to have a forum filled with "Alien Race" threads and wild unsustainable ideas.

Again, I maintain the position, I assume nothing. Ill believe only what fact and reason gives me cause to believe and im not going to be fooled either for or against the ideas and possibilities. That way im sure anyone with any agenda will find my position unmovable.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

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

I saw a show where they pretty much de-bunked theese as fires on oil platforms.
No real evidence is hear though.
I belive in life universal, but this video proves nothing

I also belive it's old.. 4 years or so right?
There has to be a more current topic to chat on
Peace



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   


So has anyone tried to debunk the entire video of this?

This so called photo is from an actual video.

The video story is supposedly uncovered by some documentary makers who bought it off the Russian mob who confiscated it out of a KGB office shortly after the wall fell and Russia went into collapse. They paid 10,000 for it and had it analized by several people and companies who could not prove it was fake and stated it was real according to their tests and the time was correct, uniforms flawless and nothing could be found to say otherwise. In fact evidence was found on one frame of the tape suggesting it was real.

There was an autopsy on something that appeared to be an alien body and when the crew looked for the 3 doctors who's faces were in the autopsy they claim to have found death records for all 3 and all 3 died on the same day and all 3 had a brain anurism. A 4th female Dr. was present but her face was never seen so they couldn't find her of course. In one frame where they stopped recording there was a slight delay and you can see a military officer come into the shot and is pointing directly at the body as the Dr.'s look on.

It was released on DVD years ago in Britain and just recently saw it for sale in the US. Before I had seen it for sale in the US I assumed there might be some validity to it as the alien autopsy was shown all over the place and proven a hoax. This one wasn't and recently popped up in a store near me.

I've been waiting years for some documentary to come out exposing it as a fake but have yet to find one. So if someone knows of anywhere that exposes this as a fake please link it because I haven't been able to find it.

I have a copy of the original dvd documentary but haven't bothered buying the one here in the states to see if it was the same or if it was edited.

Just curious about the posibility of the video being debunked.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jb0311NY

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

I saw a show where they pretty much de-bunked theese as fires on oil platforms.
No real evidence is hear though.
I belive in life universal, but this video proves nothing

I also belive it's old.. 4 years or so right?
There has to be a more current topic to chat on
Peace


If you look on you tube you can see an analysis of this video. The analysis shows they are neither Oil Platforms or fires by looking at the frequency and oscillation of the lights. Its a very good piece of analysis done by someone who actually knows how to approach something from a technical and scientific standpoint.

The "oil rig" idea like a million "debunks" ive seen was based on nothing but guesswork and was easy to disprove because fire has a very distinct pattern when analysed. Goto you tube and search mexican airforce analysis or something like that you can find it. You can actually see the work hes doing unlike the debunkers



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


HI...not to deflect your point.
I just had to add that a lot of news was still being shown in cinemas at the time.
That was how a lot of people saw the news back then.
So I'd say a lot of people did see it but not on TVs at the time.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


Yes it was debunked by the usual rediculous means. Wild speculation.

If I recall correctly the debunk was based around the uniforms and some of the jackets not matching the unit. Now anyone who knew anything about the Russia military knows its still using weapons and equipment fom world war II for a significant % of its Army, it recycles coats and uniforms and guns like nothing on earth.

A russian unit with not matching jackets? All that proves is that it probably was a Russian unit


Its never been seriously debunked as far as I know but then its ok to debunk based on speculations and unsustainable fact, anyone will accept it.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I cant answer his comment on this as Im not american, I do know that in the UK during the war you were given the news constantly and kept updated, I know because obviously of grandparents.

I cant argue as to whether the US kept its people up to date throughout the war, I find the idea that they didnt have incoming air raids and things broadcast though, goes against everything I know but since im not american i wouldnt know.

Anyone can ask their gandad this though Id guess



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


There is a video on YouTube that shows how that footage was gotten out of Russia by bribing an official along with several people analyzing it. The consensus was that the footage was of a genuine Russian military operation.

Edited to add that I think it was on the History Channel.



[edit on 10-19-2008 by groingrinder]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Darthorious
 


Yes it was debunked by the usual rediculous means. Wild speculation.

If I recall correctly the debunk was based around the uniforms and some of the jackets not matching the unit. Now anyone who knew anything about the Russia military knows its still using weapons and equipment fom world war II for a significant % of its Army, it recycles coats and uniforms and guns like nothing on earth.

A russian unit with not matching jackets? All that proves is that it probably was a Russian unit


Its never been seriously debunked as far as I know but then its ok to debunk based on speculations and unsustainable fact, anyone will accept it.


If that's the case that would be flawed. Multiple people from units would be used so the jackets may not mach. However neither would the patches then. Just because Tom in unit 1 has a above top secret clearance doesn't mean Jim from unit 1 can be trusted. Unless they are refering to the era of the jackets. Even then there would need to be one jacket or patch that post dated the time on the reels.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


I agree, what came out as "debunking" at the time was the usual rediculous speculation which they could get people to swallow.

Your comments are entirely realistic, what jackets and patches such a Russian unit would be wearing is rediculous, Russia are a patchwork army in many repects even to this day, and as you said we cant begin to imagie everyone was from the same unit or had the same clearance level.

For me its a very valid image.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


There may have been newsreels of the incident but they no longer seem to exist. And again, wartime newsreels were censored. I am quite certain there was no "Live TV coverage". There may have been radio broadcasts, I'm not sure of the protocols for blackouts.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The point is this one: the guy did NOT share his documentation neither here nor in some other conspiracy forum: he did share it in a SPECIFIC discussion board where professional astronomers were involved in the discussion: THERE he shared all the documentation in his possession and the astronomers who provided the explanation also provided the results of their calculations: no one has the burden to show anything to us as proof, since the video reached ATS only because someone found it using a P2P search engine: this should be enough to clarify that the discussion was intended to be between SPECIALISTS: everyday professional astronomers spot stuff like that and don't care at all, while he did care because he was not a professional astronomer and he couldn't interprete correctly the documentation related to the video.



I would say that i'm not an ufologist at all, and after many discussion and calculations i think (helped by a professional astronomer and helped by professional meteorologists) that the "ufo" was simply a little balloon floating approx 6000 meters high.
At the beginning i kept my movie only for myself because i decided that it was not scientifically relevant even if very rare to capture.
One day a friend of mine asked it to me and since that day the movie became public domain even on "extraterrestrial" websites. That was not my original desire or intention.
Sometimes you can't figure out the evolution of a situation. Thank you for commenting.
Greetings

Alberto (Mayer)


www.panoramio.com...

If some untrained guy would enter a discussion between specialists about, for example, LTPA (Luminous Transient Phenomena in the Atmosphere) then he would most likely believe to have found not just one but some thousands of smoking guns proving the existence of aliens intelligent life forms, but this does not mean that they actually are: all that he would prove would be simply his lack of knowledge in that specific subject matter.
The data related to the calculation is not avaliable because it has never intended to be available, while the spreadsheet and all the other stuf should be available somewhere so everyone could make his own calculations (if he is able to): but is available only because Alberto wanted to share them with some SPECIALISTS, not in some conspiracy website. Or are they supposed to teach the basics of the Moon motion tracking and related calculations to everyone who claims that "he doesn't buy it"?

Now, look at this rough scheme:

If you (A) are tracking a moving object (B) and something flying following a straight path crosses your field of sigh (C)
you will get an U-Turn effect after a certain point: how the apparent turn should appear, can be determined only in a way: looking at the technical data coming straight from the tracking software and doing the appropriate calculations: and THIS is what has been done by specialists, they don't share them with me and you because "sharing" was NOT their purpose: a serious assessment was
And of course the path looks to be irregular: the Moon does NOT move following a straight path.
Astronomers helped Alberto to explain the reason of the apparent turn and assessed that it was flying straigh and a constant speed, meteorologists helped him to explain where it was, basing their assesments on focus, appearance, weather conditions, behavior in flight, telescope settings, etcetera.
What has happened is like this: imagine that you have the hobby of the photograph, and want to ask to some expert why there's some blurred/foggy area in one of your photos, and in order to do that, you share your photo in some discussion group of photo specialists:
then, someone else rips off your photo and posts it here, in the "paranormal studies" forum, claiming that it's a ghost: would at that point some glitch, or some dust, or some moisture become magically a real ghost?
Do you think that i wasn't excited the first time i saw the footage? I thought, at first glance, even that it was flying close to the Moon surface, but since there was no evidence corroborating that belief, i thought that it could have been everywhere between Earth and Moon: after, i got in touch with Alberto, who has been kind enough to reply rather than simply ignore my first email, and he also told me to be available to share the documentation in his possession if i was interested, since his server had banwidht issues. We can choose to accept the explanation or to believe in some conspiracy involving an important astronomer, meteorologists and Alberto Mayer himself
But please, back on topic now, there are already discussion about this specific sighting, i've posted and re-posted all i could post and honestly i haven't anything else to say. Of course, i respect your opinion, and i would like to point out that this is my take on THIS specific
evidence, not on the Aliens & UFOs stuff: you could take a look at my threads about The Height 611 UFO Crash, The RB-47 UFO Encounter, The strange story of JAL 1628, Some images from Mars etc and you will find out that the last thing i'm interested to is to debunk some genuine case: what i would be interested to is to clean the field from the hoaxes and the misinterpretations, you can call something UFO after having ruled out that it is a bird, a bug, a ball, a freesbee, a reflection, a lens flare, an helicopter, a plane, a blimp, a weather ballon, a star, a planet, a spotlight, the ISS, a satellite, a sprite, a red sprite, a blue jet, a giant jet, an elve, a ball lightning, some atmospheric electricity, an Earth light, an earthquake light, an ignes fatui, some plasma, a mountain peaks luminosity, a noctilucent cloud, a St. Elmo's fire, a Transient Lunar Phenomena, ab sunset mirage and yet a HUGE list of stuff to rule out: this is what makes of an alleged UFO a REAL one, to rule out all the known phenomena, it's the only rational way to proceed and besides the only chance we have to focus on the serious stuff instead of wasting our time (for example) following some balloon


The only thing i have to say on topic is that a blind sceptical is not better than a blind believer: they are at the same level of knowledge or, better, ignorance: the best thing to do is to be open minded but at the same time to keep the feet anchored to the ground, to keep being balanced (and this is not very easy to do): then, to respect everyone's opinion and to don't flame who think different from us (and this not only is easy to do, it's mandatory). I for example don't appreciate the one-liners who chime in the thread just to say "Fake, badly done", while i applaud who puts efforts, no matter if he/she thinks different from me.
Sorry OP for the long off topic, i hope it was the last one


[edit on 19/10/2008 by internos]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The video is excellent. Everybody with just "primary school knowledge" and brain should ask some questions after watching it.

I think, for sceptics everything is to be a fake.

I think, if somebody does not understand that his wife has a few more "friends", even finding wife in a bed does not mean what is happening.

Its all about consciousness, about open mind and the real world.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join