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.

 

if i witness an alien or ufo.. this is the LAST PLACE ill present the evidence

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrysalis
Please, stop with the
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You sound like a broken record, or an escapee of some freak sect still repeating what he's been brainwashed.


Thank you - how astonishingly polite. I actually never said anything like that, although - charitably - my use of the word 'extraordinary' may well have just brought down the red mist.


Originally posted by Chrysalis
Proof is relative. Different people will require different levels of proofs.


I agree. What I was suggesting was just a little bit of empathy. For someone who isn't an 'experiencer', the claim is extraordinary, and so I, personally, would like some evidence. I repeat: pick something extraordinary you don't currently believe in and decide what it would take for you to believe in it. It's actually not 'extraordinary' evidence. It's just something that would be hard to explain in other terms.

(The more elaborate the claim, the more evidence I'd require. An alien, well, a video might be sufficient. An alien conspiracy involving world-leaders and decades of information-suppression, I'd want more than the video of an alien. And so on).


Originally posted by Chrysalis
Then maybe some experiencers will do the broken record trick and shout back at you
"You want the truth ? You can't handle the truth!"


Which would be a logical master-stroke. There would be nothing to say in the face of such a riposte.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrysalis
Please, stop with the
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Proof is relative.


Which is the very reason for Sagan's Law. The proof reguired for different incidents is relative to the incident. For example, if one claims they saw a dog walking down the street, one would need little evidence to prove this; we have all seen walking down the street and this is not an extraordinary experience or claim.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weneedtoknow
 


You are right. If you ever have any real UFO evidence or alien evidence NEVER bring it here to ATS. These people here will debunk anything and trash your vids or pics in three pages tops. By the third page they are laughing at you and thinking that they know best. Believe me; I have seen some pretty disgusting and mindless debunking here. They will then say that they have to "weed out" the hoaxers, yeah right. And that they do it for your own good. Making up the corniest explanations for your videos or pics.

If you really do have a hands down proof of any kind please call MUFON or NUFORC, they will send experts to view and study your case. If you bring it here to ATS they will come up with the creasiest excuse and will make that excuse fit your video even if the video is the real deal. Debunking it and actually stopping you from bringing it any further for examination to any real expert on the subject.

If it is proven real, it will eventually get here to ATS, where they will debunk it anyway, but it’s too late because the world will know it is real and there will be proof of it being real. And ATS will still be trying to debunk it with corny stuff like “those colors are too bright for it to be real” or some corny thing like that. This here is a conspiracy site, not a validity sight. If you want real help then go to the UFO expert, if you want a conspiracy point of view, then listen to the members here. They will make up a good one every time.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by damagedoor
The more elaborate the claim, the more evidence I'd require. An alien, well, a video might be sufficient.


Considering there has not been a genuine film of an extraterrestrial (at least as far as we know), a genuine film would fall under the category of "extraordinary evidence."



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Coward
reply to post by weneedtoknow
 


You are right. If you ever have any real UFO evidence or alien evidence NEVER bring it here to ATS. These people here will debunk anything and trash your vids or pics in three pages tops. By the third page they are laughing at you and thinking that they know best. Believe me; I have seen some pretty disgusting and mindless debunking here. They will then say that they have to "weed out" the hoaxers, yeah right. And that they do it for your own good. Making up the corniest explanations for your videos or pics.

If you really do have a hands down proof of any kind please call MUFON or NUFORC, they will send experts to view and study your case. If you bring it here to ATS they will come up with the creasiest excuse and will make that excuse fit your video even if the video is the real deal. Debunking it and actually stopping you from bringing it any further for examination to any real expert on the subject.

If it is proven real, it will eventually get here to ATS, where they will debunk it anyway, but it’s too late because the world will know it is real and there will be proof of it being real. And ATS will still be trying to debunk it with corny stuff like “those colors are too bright for it to be real” or some corny thing like that. This here is a conspiracy site, not a validity sight. If you want real help then go to the UFO expert, if you want a conspiracy point of view, then listen to the members here. They will make up a good one every time.



hear hear

the wisest words ive ever heard on this forum
when i joined ats, i thought `at last an open minded forum`
but i see nothing but uncalled for ridicule, and bullying and a total lack of respect for people
the only difference between here and other forums is its more cynical form of bullying as apose to all out abuse, for which i praise the mods of doing a good job at keeping it clean
but your right,

after a while the whole defending the skeptics falls apart as they are NEVER HAPPY, THEY WONT ACCEPT EVIDENCE EVEN IF IT STARED THEM IN THE FACE, and when you put up a post that they dont like, they avoid the question such as ive asked a thousand times `proove that jesus christ who trillions upon people have believed in and worshiped, that he ever existed` yet they cant answer that.. they give some rubbish about faith not needing proof, but still wont believe the thousands of verified eye witnesses, sometimes mass sightings of thousands of people, the reports of pilots military personnel, doctors lawyers senators people with high clearance people who have no reason whatsoever to lie.. yet these skeptics still have the damn cheek to say `without solid physical evidence its nothing`

you know what.. im done with even caring about the skeptics on here as ive seen they arent on here because they genuinely `want the best` they are on here because they will NEVER ACCEPT IT even if its staring them in the face and are here for nothing more than to ridicule believers!

go on, quote my words... bash me, as you dont like the truth you imature people.....your just lucky i have to watch my language on here!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Some quite good posts in this topic.


But to the threadstarters point, I must say that I totaly understand him. It is sort of dangerus telling your story here if you don't have HD video, images from minimum 5 angles and 100 eyewitnesses if you don't want to be stamped as a hoax or whatever. Ofcourse, not exactly like that, but I do unfortinatly see that a lot of people that have experienced something they want to share, so they might understand it better, even thou it actually were an unearthly object or something misinterpreted. And when they are so kind to share their experiences with us, we should be more kind to them and not be so harsh on them, espectially if they are new here. We have frightened away a lot of member that way, and I do find that sad. Ofcourse we're here to find the truth, but to figure out something doesn't mean to harash someone just because they don't have any good evidence to back up their story. Most UFO sightings don't have that, and we should be pleased with what we get in every case, and work our way out from there. If there is no red warning flags screaming hoaxer from the beginning, we shouldn't stamp the OP like it either from the beginning.

And I do strongly believe that a lot of users out there feel the same as the OP in this thread, and is that a good thing? Do we want to dig after the truth, and hear stories? Well, then we should start showing some more respect for the people telling them until we for shure can now if their either legit and wan't our help or if they just want to pull a prank on us. Prankers are idiots with to much time on their hand, people can hate them for all I care, but until we can tell the difference - show respect, and keep in mind - even if it doesn't turn out to be a real UFO story, picture or whatever - if doesn't mean that the OP wanted to hoax us.

Peace beloved friends of ATS!


Let's make this place a better place in the spirit of thouse who want's to know the truth no matter what it is!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Which is the very reason for Sagan's Law. The proof reguired for different incidents is relative to the incident. For example, if one claims they saw a dog walking down the street, one would need little evidence to prove this; we have all seen walking down the street and this is not an extraordinary experience or claim.


Thats not a law its a rule of extreme stupidity.

If a man claims to be walking his dog during a crime and thats his alibi I think you would find it requires proof, credible proof.

The only reason it doesnt require proof in your eyes is because you dont really care, thats your problem, not anyone elses. The FACTs are simple, the dog walking down the street is no more real or unreal than a moon base, just one you find it simple to take at face value.

Why? Why is it so simple for masses of people to take everything at face value? Because the masses as a whole are incredibly dull witted, I suggest reading a little Noam Chomsky and not drudging out meaningless quotes by a man who wanted to nuke the moon.

The fact is if someone is put infront of a camera with credibility and they speak, you swallow every word. Thats the limit and scope of reality in your existence. Im afraid true reality has nothing at all to do with it.

The weakness is YOUR perception, not anyone elses and certainly not a "rule".

400 qualified people are willing to testify before congress, and in law witnesses do constitute proof, or rather "credible" witnesses. There again lies a sore and sorry truth of reality, its not that the proof doesnt exist, its simply you dont give credence to it and why is that? Certainly not because you know the 400 people or know anything about them, no you dont give credence to them because your mind cant break free of its own little peg of reality.

However you do give credence to people who are given their orders by known liars, Bush, Cheney, Rummie, the entire CIA, NSA and FBI, yet somehow, the people who are under their direct orders ons ecurity matters have credible?

The thing I find incredible is that you actually believe you know the truth.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


So now you are saying that Carl Sagan is stupid?

Where did YOU go to university, mate?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
reply to post by silver6ix
 


So now you are saying that Carl Sagan is stupid?

Where did YOU go to university, mate?


I went to University in England.

Im saying Carl Sagan is hardly a source for world defining quotes on life. I think theres a fair few much smarter, much better much more intelligent people. Like I said, read some real books and dont bore me with Sagan, a guy who wasnt even close to the best in his field.


Note once again your post has as much value as an empty bag, Hank. Are you going to have something worthy to say one of these days or im I just going to be laughing at the churlish comments?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
but i see nothing but uncalled for ridicule, and bullying and a total lack of respect for people


My friend,

No one has ridiculed you for your beliefs. We have challenged you on your attacks on skeptics, but no one has ridiculed you for believing extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth. We have a disagreement on that particular point, but disagreement is not ridicule or bullying.

And please, do not talk to us about a lack of respect. While everyone has treated you with a great deal of respect, you have yet to show one modicum of respect for anyone who may disagree. Shall I post some of the unwarranted comments you have made towards others?


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
proove that jesus christ who trillions upon people have believed in and worshiped, that he ever existed` yet they cant answer that...


First of all, trillions of people have not worshipped Jesus. The Earth has never contained trillions of people. But I am nitpicking.

And we have told you. Jesus has nothing to do with this. We aren't trying to prove the existence of Jesus versus the existence of aliens. The only person who has brought up Jesus is you. Millions of people believing in Jesus doesn't make him real, nor does it somehow mean that extraterrestrials are driving the UFO phenomenon.


Originally posted by weneedtoknow
go on, quote my words... bash me, as you dont like the truth you imature people.....your just lucky i have to watch my language on here!


Disagreeing with you or challenging your viewpoints is not bashing you. And please, much like your complaint about respect, the only person who has shown any immaturity is you. Threats are hardly a sign of maturity by any standard.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
The only reason it doesnt require proof in your eyes is because you dont really care, thats your problem, not anyone elses. The FACTs are simple, the dog walking down the street is no more real or unreal than a moon base, just one you find it simple to take at face value.


A situation calls for varying degrees of evidence. If a person said they saw a dog walking down the street, one could take that on face value because it is a known fact that dogs walk down the street. If a person said that they saw a giant two-headed blue cat walking down the street, then one would not take such thing at face value, and require some sort of evidence, because giant two-headed blue cats are not a known quantity.


Originally posted by silver6ix
I suggest reading a little Noam Chomsky and not drudging out meaningless quotes by a man who wanted to nuke the moon.


Carl Sagan did not want to nuke the moon. You have your facts wrong. I would suggest that when attacking someone, claiming that person is stupid, you might want to get your facts right about him.

Sagan was recruited into an Air Force project, A 119, to study how a mushroom cloud would expand and fall in the moon's gravity. He proposed that if such a detonation were to happen, the mushroom cloud could be studied for organic material. That was his involvement. Detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon was not his idea.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
A situation calls for varying degrees of evidence. If a person said they saw a dog walking down the street, one could take that on face value because it is a known fact that dogs walk down the street. If a person said that they saw a giant two-headed blue cat walking down the street, then one would not take such thing at face value, and require some sort of evidence, because giant two-headed blue cats are not a known quantity.


You might take it on face value but then thats because you mind finds it easy to do so. It is not by any means a sane or absolute rule.
People who take things on face value have a habit of taking things at face value.

Why would I, as an intelligent person equate abolute reality to something I do not know happened? I wouldnt, thats the simplest answer as I have no need to. It wouldnt bother me since I have no need to know but I do try not to let my mind create fictional truths no matter how "reasonable" they may seem at first glance.

Many things in life arent known quantities, or at least not first hand. Ive said before, you inherited over 80% of your reality. Many things in the "real world" you have never seen and could never verify and you accept them as real.

I have no need or reason to accept them as real so I dont, thats the difference. If I need to know, I would determine the reality for myself.

Assumptions are not requirements. Because one person creates realities based on nothing, doesnt mean everyone does.


Originally posted by silver6ix
Carl Sagan did not want to nuke the moon. You have your facts wrong. I would suggest that when attacking someone, claiming that person is stupid, you might want to get your facts right about him.


Actually he did, it was Sagan who sugested detonating a nuke on the moon as a means of finding bacterial life.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
this thread is a HOAX.

Close it.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by musclefreak
this thread is a HOAX.

Close it.


im snapshoting that comment saving it as jpeg and linking it to EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE MESSAGE BOARD ON THE NET...
ITS IDIOTS LIKE YOU WHO RUIN THIS WEBSITE

IMATURE **** GROW UP



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by musclefreak
this thread is a HOAX.

Close it.


Why do you think it is a hoax, Mr. Freak?

Though I do not necessarily agree with Weneedtoknow's sentiments, I do think it is a discussion we should have. Too often the UFO debate is cast as believers vs. skeptics, each side portraying the other to be the enemy, and somehow standing in the way of the truth.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by weneedtoknow
im snapshoting that comment saving it as jpeg and linking it to EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE MESSAGE BOARD ON THE NET...
ITS IDIOTS LIKE YOU WHO RUIN THIS WEBSITE

IMATURE **** GROW UP


Calm down. There is no need to get sore all the time. Perhaps you could instead ask him why he thinks the thread needs to be shut down. Did you consider that Musclefreak may be a believer, and thinks your attitude is hurting your common cause?

And please, do not call other people names then accuse them of being immature.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Considering there has not been a genuine film of an extraterrestrial (at least as far as we know), a genuine film would fall under the category of "extraordinary evidence."

Sure it would, and then it will get debunked one way or the other.

I have had scores of people ridiculing me for taking a serious look at the Alien Interview tape. They find it laughable that I even consider the possiblity that the footage is authentic.

And yet these same people have nothing to back up their claim that the footage is "obviously" faked. So they resort to name calling and smear tactics. There is absolutely NO evidence suggesting the footage is faked, yet judging by your above post you also think it was a hoax.

I'm interested to find out why that is, because I suspect most people that claim the Alien Interview footage is "obviously" faked say this because it doesn't fit with their view on the world.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Which is the very reason for Sagan's Law. The proof reguired for different incidents is relative to the incident. For example, if one claims they saw a dog walking down the street, one would need little evidence to prove this; we have all seen walking down the street and this is not an extraordinary experience or claim.


Thats not a law its a rule of extreme stupidity.

If a man claims to be walking his dog during a crime and thats his alibi I think you would find it requires proof, credible proof.


Nobody has to prove their innocence. However, the man would do well to back it up in the face of other evidence that he was responsible for the crime. And in such a case, people would no doubt attempt to disprove the story about the dog.

None of this is because the claim is extraordinary in itself; it's because it's more important in that situation for the conclusion to be correct. There might well be good reason to believe the man is lying, and there is more at stake if that lie is missed. It is the consequences of being wrong that dictate the evidence required.

Actually, because of the presumption of innocence, the analogy doesn't work. It's better to reverse it. Taking away an innocent man's liberty while the real offender remains free is a terrible outcome, and so it is very, very important to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed the crime. A blurry video, which may be the accused or may be someone else, is simply not good enough. Nor is the fact that we may already believe the man is guilty. In other circumstances, these might be sufficient to sway us, but here the consequences are too important for us to be slack.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I totally friggin agree.

I too have witnessed massive, mammoth amounts of bull# carry on here on this site.

There appears to be tooooo many people who'll scream "ignorance" before realising that they've even opened their mouth..

MHO.

Vacant



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I think he was being sarcastic. This has brought to my attention something however. weneedtoknow seems to only respond to posts that serve his point of view. I have yet to see him respond to any of the valid points made by the skeptics in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join