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.

 

Green levitating elephants once ruled this planet..!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:42 AM
link   
On a recent discussion, I noticed the habit people have of saying "I think..", then coming out with statements regarding what they believe to be the case regarding the existence of "OIL" (Other Intelligent Life). When asked for evidence of there existence they retort "prove they don't exist".

Well my proof that they don't exist is simple, you have no evidence to prove they do exist.

Otherwise my theory on Green levitating elephants once ruling the world would also be true, together with an infinite amount of other theories, including the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

I think that those people who insist on saying I think they will contact us in so and so years or in the year so and so, should stop saying I think. you have absolutely no evidence to say that they exist at all, let alone what time they'll be dropping in for coffee.....!!
You WISH, you knew when and if they were going to make contact, IF they exist at all.

There are a great many things which we do not understand about ourselves, the World and the Universe around us. We have strived and made good progress in the areas of science and technology, but it is my belief that we haven't even scratched the surface.

Don't get me wrong, I hope before I die that hard evidence is produced to prove the existence of other intelligent species, but these are early days for humankind.

We still have archaic belief systems which are the prominent cause of our differences, together with our constant quibbling about borders and cultures. Our yearning to have our culture be the dominant one, has been reproduced through out history time and time again in the existence of empires spreading through out lands.

If humankind can make it through it's self destructive adolesence without killing itself and its home then maybe we can strive together to discover who we share the universe with.

Stop making assumptions based on your wish lists.




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Good points Koka. However, your statement

"Well my proof that they don't exist is simple, you have no evidence to prove they do exist. "

is quite easily turned around,

My proof they do exist is that you have no evidence they don`t. This kind of argument is usually applied in Religion or Philosophical debate and is largely (IMO) useless. The arguement usually goes round in circles.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Yes Cassini, I am aware of the cyclic motion that is created by my statement.

My point was, that making wild spurious statements/claims, whether it be "Levitating Elephants" or "UFO's" will only ever be theories in the minds of the imaginative. People are insistent in making these statements real, and there are so many people on this site that want them to be real, that proof becomes inconsequential.

And when you're trying to convince someone that what you saw is real, replying "Prove I didn't" does not fill me with the greatest of confidence regarding the source.

No proof, No truth.


[edit on 14-7-2004 by Koka]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Yes Cassini, I am aware of the cyclic motion that is created by my statement.

My point was, that making wild spurious statements/claims, whether it be "Levitating Elephants" or "UFO's" will only ever be theories in the minds of the imaginative. People are insistent in making these statements real, and there are so many people on this site that want them to be real, that proof becomes inconsequential.

And when you're trying to convince someone that what you saw is real, replying "Prove I didn't" does fill me with the greatest of confidence regarding the source.

No proof, No truth.


Huh?

Your saying "show me that it exists and I will believe you"

Have you ever seen a million dollars? No? Then how could it exist....



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Koka I see the point of your argument but for me the the vastness of the universe makes such speculation more than just useless speculation. Perhaps if you had qualified the argument to have they visited "this planet".

Also, fact and belief are very closley tied in. Many people believe God to be real and the only proof is a collection of words called the bible, torah etc. This to me is belief not fact others will tell you otherwise.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NetStorm

Huh?

Your saying "show me that it exists and I will believe you"

Have you ever seen a million dollars? No? Then how could it exist....



Yes Netstorm, I'm pretty much saying, I don't believe any of it unless I see some proof.

I've seen a dollar, and therefore I know they exist and if I had a million of them..........need I say more..?


Its the difference between Fact & Speculation.

And a common trait on this website is for individuals to believe based on what they want to believe as opposed to the facts or evidence.

I agree Cassini, they are beliefs, and I have no quarrel with those who believe in the unproven, no matter how ridiculous they may seem.
But I thought that this site was for those who want the truth, and not those that blindly follow.

I myself am quite spiritual, but not in a god fearing manner. I understand that there is a whole Universe out there which, mathematically, should be teeming with life, and hope that one day, maybe in my lifetime this will be proven.

But I refuse to jump to any conclusions based on speculation.

I like to weigh up a great many things before I go to any one side, and in my early years would have believed most anything, but only because thats what I desired.

There are things we know, we know,
There are things we know, we don't know
and there are things we don't know, we don't know.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
you're title is misleading ....



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
very missleading,
But he makes a point that only that title could get you to read.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
you're title is misleading ....


Thank you elevatedone, you go part way to proving my point about following blindly, then give the
when the conversation is not actually about "green levitating elephants ruling the planet".

You'd probably benefit from going to a blog about life on Uranus.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Could this be proof that these majestic creatures once ruled the planet?

www.edgarlowen.com...

www.missionimportsltd.org...

www.mineralminers.com...



The levitating part is still hotly debated.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by darklanser]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by cassini]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Well done darklanser, and thanks for taking the time to put those together.
However you do realise by putting pictures into this thread, some of our colleagues here at ATS have all the evidence they need now...!!



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
"Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence"

and vice versa for these things existing.

There just is a lack of evidence, so the only conclusion can be unknown, inconclusive.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
My God what a brilliant post. Thanks to Koka for keeping it real. I honestly agree with everything he said...I strongly believe in Extraterrerstrial life but I fail to see how all the lame stories and speculation on the sexual abilities of Grey alien drones, human/alien hybrids, norwegians, galactic federations and whatever other stupidity is being spoken helps our cause. I agree...I completely agree...I also feel that the Elephants were not green but PINK...there's been so many oral traditions surrounding pink elephants there's gotta be some truth in it.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
"you're title is misleading ....
"

Did anyone seriously open the thread with the expectation that proof of green levitating elephants ruling the planet? The original poster was trying to make a point and has done so quite well and has at least attempted to make some intelligent comment. So a well done to koka for that...

One liners such as elevatedone has made do not rate high on the good comment scale. Lets try and get some intelligent debate going rather than having this type of comment....



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Wouldnt the Idea be some sort of Proof to begin with thoe? i mean hey its the only thing u got so far maybe there can be more too it, i mean you dont have anything else to compare it too so untill you do scienceficly you have to go with what yeah got atm.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
On a related note, noone has as yet offered any proof against my long standing claim that I am Batman, clearly therefore, I am indeed Batman.

I think (heh heh) Koka is just expressing his/her frustration at the prevalence of pseudoscience around the place. I'm sure many of us have experienced this at one time or another. It is also not limited to Aliens and UFO's either. There are plenty of cases around where people make 'scientific' claims, when what they are claiming has no scientific base whatsoever.

Info on pseudoscience from skepdic.com

Theres also this nice definition of pseudoscience from wikipedia.org:


Typically, pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by one or more of the following rules of thumb:

  • by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
  • by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
  • by failing to provide an experimental possiblity of reproducible results;
  • by asserting claims that violate falsifiability; or
  • by violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible); the more egregious the violation, the more likely.


Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by 'scientific' means (i.e., most usually in accordance with the scientific method). Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim to be scientific or to overturn well established science.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trance
Wouldnt the Idea be some sort of Proof to begin with thoe? i mean hey its the only thing u got so far maybe there can be more too it, i mean you dont have anything else to compare it too so untill you do scienceficly you have to go with what yeah got atm.
That's ridiculous...that would be like me saying that "I think Kokas green elephants theory is correct" so...by your account...it's proof enough for it to be real.

Preposterous.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Well my proof that they don't exist is simple, you have no evidence to prove they do exist.


You will get no argument from me on this one as we are in complete agreement. This is the argument used mostly in religious debates and it drives me nuts as it is a warped form of logic at best and insanity at worse. Non-proof is not proof in any form of empirical testing.

Flying green elephants do not exist in our reality because they can not be proven. The absence of proof does not constitute that we can not prove that they are not true. This is in no way, shape or form a type of rational thinking that I would take seriously. It is just grasping at straws in a way to help support an idea that you WANT to believe.

Sure the possibility of flying green elephants is always there, but it is so improbable (because of what we do know about animals, physics, etc) that without a shread of proof such a belief is unjustified concerning logic and reason.

We all have our theories about things that we can not rationally prove, but without hard tangible proof these theories do not exist as an actualized reality and thus "Because you can not prove that said thing does not exist without proof of its non-existence" is not a logical or valid argument.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Jonna]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Koka, you are presuming that the absurdest claims and beliefs surrounding the ET/UFO subject are made in earnest by people who have a sincere desire to know and understand the truth.

I hope you've considered the possibility that at least some of the craziness is attributable to a deliberate efforts to obfuscate, ridicule, and marginalize the issue.

I submit to you that the military technological, economic, social and religious implications of extraterrestrial visitation are so immense, and the stakes are so high, that there are substantial incentives for some people who might have impressive data, and even physical evidence, to keep the truth under wraps.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
quote:

Originally posted by preest

That's ridiculous...that would be like me saying that "I think Kokas green elephants theory is correct" so...by your account...it's proof enough for it to be real.

Preposterous.

///////

What im saying is that i think that an idea is proof based on that fact that with a idea people will be intriged enough to scout out further proof of that idea. Meaning that the idea at the time was enough proof for them to go looking for more facts on the subject.

even thoe the idea might not be fact or real in the 1st place isnt what im talking about, im just stating that the idea was enough proof to look further.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Trance]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Trance]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Trance]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join